Health Care History Lesson
I’ll be closely watching today’s expected health care vote in Washington. Frankly, I don’t think it will be as bad as its critics say it will, nor the panacea proponents want it to be. However, I do think the history behind all this is fascinating. The New York Times has put together an interactive chart on the history of health care reform. Looking at old articles, all I can say is that the more things change, the more they stay exactly the same.
1912 – Teddy Roosevelt campaigns on national health insurance as part of his platform for President.
1929 – Baylor Hospital in Dallas creates what’s considered the first modern insurance program.
1931 – The first HMO is invented as a way to keep costs down for a farmers co-op.
1932 – The Wilbur Commission calls for “group insurance” as a way to keep costs under control. The American Medical Association calls it “socialism”.
1938 – Early insurance plans offer “pre-paid” deals but leave out the elderly and unemployed.
1945 – Harry Truman calls for compulsory universal coverage and more hospital construction. AMA calls is socialized medicine.
1946 – Congress passes Hill-Burton Act to expand hospitals into rural areas. It also lays groundwork for most of today’s insurance regulation.
1949 – U.S. Supreme Court upholds a National Labor Relations Board ruling that health benefits can be part of collective bargaining.
1954 – IRS exempts employee benefits like health insurance from taxation.
1962 – John F. Kennedy proposes medical benefits for social security recipients. Plan stalls in Congress.
1965 – Medicaid and Medicare are created.
1968 – With more Americans insured health care costs begin to skyrocket.
1971 – Richard Nixon and Ted Kennedy offer up competing health care plans. Nixon plan would mandate employers provide insurance, but use private companies. Kennedy’s plan would create a single-payer system.
1973 – Nixon signs bill creating HMO’s as a way to control health care costs.
1974 – Congress creates Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) exempting large employers who self-insure from state regulations.
1976 – Jimmy Carter campaigns on national health insurance.
1986 – Congress passes law requiring hospitals to treat and stabilize all emergency room patients. It also creates COBRA, which allows employees to keep their health insurance after losing their jobs for up to 18 months.
1988 – Congress medical Catastrophic Care Act to protect seniors from financial ruin to health care costs. Law repealed in 1989.
1993 – Bill Clinton introduces health care reform.
1994 – Clinton health care reform fails.
1996 – Congress passes Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act which protects people in group insurance plans from being discriminated against due to pre-existing conditions.
2002 – Health care costs continue to rise and employers pass those burdens on to employees.
2003 – George W. Bush expands Medicare to cover prescription drugs.
2004 – Health care spending tops $2 trillion, becomes 16% of the national economy.
2008 – You know where we are now.
Like I said, regardless of the outcome, this entire process has been fascinating to watch, especially for the last 100 years.
March 21st, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Interesting history lesson. For those who advocate “going slower” it is already one of the longest running “debates” in our history. Interesting where there is currently absolutely no bipartisanship on this it has not been only a one party issue over time. Just wonder if should take more time (like another 100 years) to consider. Also, wonder how much of the current “anti” ads and material is being paid for my vested interest such as the health care industry. And as point of disclosurer I do own stock in several health care companies.
March 21st, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Yeah, I thought we were supposed to slow down so we could debate this some more.
March 21st, 2010 at 2:42 pm
The crawl away from the Founders has been slow, but steady. It's a lot harder to notice changes when they are incremental, rather than sweeping. But, at the end of the century, there they are. More socialized, less free.
March 21st, 2010 at 2:50 pm
When will the republican leaders publicly condemn the vermin teabaggers who are spitting on congresspersons, calling them racist and ugly names and making thinly veiled threats of violence? Time for the Republican leadership to step up and disown these crazy teabaggers.
March 21st, 2010 at 3:51 pm
GP38-2—-and others: While holding high regard for the work of the “founding fathers” it should be taken with a high degree of understanding of the history of the world and the birth of this nation as to provisions put into the original documents. Too often fingers are pointed saying the founding documents this or that—again, giving them credit but this was a group of white mainly English and mainly rather wealthy men who made decisions in line with their concerns about royal Europe and in line with religious beliefs. Now just because a topic was not included should not forever ban its consideration. They were not gifted with visions of the future that would hold massive war weapons, technology beyond their ability to envision, social changes in so many areas, a world wide economic climate complete different from anything they had experienced, etc. Again, give them their due but at some point the argument becomes very shallow. The world did not stop evolving in 1776 and fortunately in this country different from many the evolution of philosphy has been an evolution not a revolution.
March 21st, 2010 at 4:29 pm
I find it extremely hard to believe (not simply because it comes from a Carson) that a crowd was 'chanting the N-word'. There are rednecks in every crowd, Hector. This in no way resembles the behavior of Tea Party members at rallies this past year. (Though you may love the term and practice of teabagging. That's not was these folks are called. Some would find that term more offensive than the N-word.)
Only 36% of the American public support this overhaul of our healthcare that your party is pushing down our throats. So it stands to reason that the 72% who oppose it would include Democrats as well as Republicans. So why does Rerublican leadership owe any apologizies? What a stereotype you perpetuate, Hector!
March 21st, 2010 at 5:28 pm
agman, you make a good point about the Founding Fathers aren't all that they're often portrayed as, but you lost me from there.
What I find fascinating about the founding fathers is how much they disagreed, which sometimes led to bitter rivalries that lasted decades. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson went from being on the same team that drafted the Declaration of Independence to being bitter rivals who, for the most part, carried that rivalry to their deaths. They are not some type of unit that can be summed up as if they were a team with the same goals. They were individuals pretty much forced to work together, compromising over and over again, with some good ideas in there and some good ideas being thrown out.
March 21st, 2010 at 7:12 pm
And yet, the principles underpinning hold up remarkably well, because human nature really hasn't changed much, regardless of circumstances, skin color, or place of origin. The evidence lies in cities like Detroit, DC, Cleveland, and to some extent Indy, where wealth has been chased away, and destructive poverty welcomed, by the progressive policies enacted over years. Health care legislation is just but one such, and on a national scale. Alas, some folks just won't ever accept the evidence and connect the dots.
March 21st, 2010 at 9:45 pm
The founders made provisions for such changes in the Bill of Rights. Either amend the constitution, or reserve whatever power to the individual states. The constitution makes no mention of providing for health care benefits, so let the individual states decide. Massachusetts has already done so (and going broke in the process). Let the other 49 decide for themselves and keep the federal government out of it.
March 21st, 2010 at 9:59 pm
I'm still looking for our national (vs federal) government's authority to legislate or regulate in this area.
Darn it! I just can't seem to find it in those pesky enumerated powers of Congress.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Interesting responses but would say that the interpretations taken from the Constitution to today's world are a bit of a push. Where does it speak of a national highway system, telephone (or even telegraph), television, airplanes and airports, and on and on–it is a good document (as stated a total compromise even for the time) but is lacking in addressing many issues. Now there is different readings on what it allows for and does not and we experience that every day. Simply do not believe it was a static document and if every change in every way in every place would require a document of unbelievable size. Simply do not buy the argument that if the constitution does not address it then it can not be, too much not addressed that is relevant as time moves forth. States rights, read history well and see what the feelings were at that time among the delegates and less than 100 years later there was a little war over that issue.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:58 pm
I suggest you do research on the term “CoIntelPro” and understand the principles of such. It is very easy for a handful of people to infiltrate a public protest with the sole intention of inciting violence, claims or racism or other things by drawing attention to themselves in ways the whole of the group would not approve.
Want to discredit a movement, become part of it and act in ways the public finds unacceptable.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:08 am
AG: “Evolution” has anachronistic pitch in the foul chorus of socialism; crutching or citing “technology” in specious reference to the HUMAN CONDITION.
In the imperfect times unto which they were born, the founders did the work of setting into motion, the greatest possibility for mankind to self govern; in divine form, our Constitution.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:38 am
The left always reverts to the Constitution being a living, breathing document when they decide it's time for a new federal program or “right.” What do televisions and airports have to do with the Founding Fathers. The Constitution is a framework that limits the government intervention into our lives, and explains how the federal government is to operate. The modern democrat party and their government uber alles mentality is destroying this country.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:38 am
The left always reverts to the Constitution being a living, breathing document when they decide it's time for a new federal program or “right.” What do televisions and airports have to do with the Founding Fathers. The Constitution is a framework that limits the government intervention into our lives, and explains how the federal government is to operate. The modern democrat party and their government uber alles mentality is destroying this country.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:44 am
A century later and we only get a half (closer to a third) measure toward healthcare reform. Although they lost the latest round, the conservatives are still winning the debate. But at least we've moved into the mid-20th century.
And by-the-by, I doubt that the Nov. elections will see wholesale removal of Democrats. They will lose seats, that is to be expected in an off-year election. However, I doubt that they'll lose even the House, much less the Senate. While most of the public does not favor the healthcare bill, parse it out. How many are against it because it does too little? Just because Congress has a low approval rating does not mean that people are dissatisfied with their congressmen. And it certainly does not translate into support for the GOP, unless people want nothing done in re: healthcare.
If it was such political suicide as hate radio has been making this out to be, the GOP would not be obstructing, lying, and screaming as they have been. If your enemy is killing himself you sit back, shut-up and let him do it. Warning him about the consequences is not in your interest.
And the tea-baggers (they called themselves this first, remember?) are not a political force to anything other than the GOP. They fizzled in Texas because they just can't deliver the votes. They maybe loud, but they're not going anywhere.
Ross Perot had a bigger following and how far did that get? They are not going to make a significant difference as they (primarily) are GOP voters. And I whole-heartedly support them. I want them to move the GOP even further into la-la land. To say that the tea-baggers are not politically astute is an understatement, akin to saying that Hoover did not fully understand economics. I certainly could be wrong, but let's just watch and see. I also stand by my previous prediction that Obama will be a 2 term president. Watch.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:58 am
Ooh, we've finally moved into the mid-20th century with a half measure. Rejoice! All is well.
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:07 am
WTF is up with this? Tried 3 times to post.
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:26 am
Mal: There are plenty-o D's in the tea party movement who understand that government is too big to succeed.
Tonight, it's accelerated its consumption, to a rate of assured self destruction.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:45 am
How is the national government getting jurisdiction to force me to purchase insurance?
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:01 am
I am glad I will now be able to quit my job and become a layabout and bum, consuming various government resources, and having FREE healthcare to boot!! I don't see what is so bad about this bill? One of the only reasons I have a real job, having to wake up at 5:15AM in the morning, work weekends, etc. is for healthcare. Now I will be able to quit my current job in about seven to eight years when we have nothing but government healthcare. Now way I am going to keep working weekends and paying $200-$300/paycheck to the government for healthcare. Best to quit and be a load. Only suckers will continue to work hard and slave away now that healthcare will be here in near future.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:08 am
Oh, also:
Don't ask what you can do for your country, ask what your country and others can do for you!! Full steam ahead for socialism. I am sick of working, sick of having to worry about paying bills, etc.. I demand the government provide for me from cradle to the grave.
Also, does anyone have any suggestions on where a person can find some side work where they can be paid in cash/goods? Gotta find a way to avoid the coming US Department of Healthcare taxes. Oh, what is the lowest income bracket one can work in to avoid the full onslaught of the coming taxes? I need about another two years at my current job and my home is paid off. I would then like to get a job that _I_ want, and not have to worry about getting healthcare benefits. My main goal is to get some job a monkey could do that makes around $10/hour and only make enough to still be eligible for food stamps, free breakfast and lunch for my kids at school, and grants for their college.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:53 am
Interesting that I am a “left” in that might disagree in that would put myself more in the middle. I too wish the government played less of a role in everyday life, but reality is that as the number of people increased, the complexity of the world changed, as rights were given to those that were not white, male, european, etc. and as the world experience the barons of society —things simply got more complex than the framers of the constitution ever preceived.
June 7th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Well , the view of the passage is totally correct ,your details is really reasonable and you guy give us valuable informative post, I totally agree the standpoint of upstairs. I often surfing on this forum when I m free and I find there are so much good information we can learn in this forum!
qglap-uu