Lordy, Lordy, Look Who’s Forty: A Review of Our 40-Year-Old Stalemate in Health Care Reform
Well, folks, it is official. I am “over the hill.” Yup. My birthday is today, January 7, 1975, and I was born 40 years ago.
Instead of moping around, I have decided to embrace my 40s. For starters, let’s take a look at where we were 40 years ago. Obviously, personally, I was in utero. But what about the country? What about health care?
Not surprisingly, even 40 years ago, politicians were discussing the same issues with health care as we are now. Some things never change…or do they???
In my “40 years in review” blog, I want to discuss why we, as a nation, are still arguing about the same health care issues that we were arguing about 40 years ago. And, perhaps, the reason why we have been in a 40-year-old stalemate in health care reform.
Today, we have a diverged nation when it comes to health care. Democrats want to expand public health insurance (i.e., Medicaid) and tend to favor a higher degree of government oversight of health care to ensure that health care is available to all people. Republicans, on the other hand, believe that the financial burden of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the federal and state level is unsustainable, and people will receive less than adequate health care. Republicans tend to favor privatization of Medicaid, while liberals oppose such ideas.
Health care reform has been a hot topic for over 40 years…with some interesting differences…
Going back to 1975…
Gerald Ford, a Republican, was our nation’s president, and we were in a nationwide recession.
Under Ford, the American Medical Society (AMA) proposed a new plan for health care, an employer mandate proposal.
According to a 1975 Chicago Tribune journalist, the AMA’s new proposal pushed for a broader government role in health care. See below.
“The new [ ] plan would cover both employees and the unemployed, along with poor people and those considered uninsurable because of medical or mental problems. It would require employers to subsidize health care for employees and their families and pay at least 65 % of each premium. It would also require the government to provide partially subsidized health insurance, financed from general revenues, for the poor and the unemployed. It calls for medical insurance benefits covering 365 days of hospital care during any one year, 100 days of nursing home care, and home health, mental, and dental service for children aged 2 and up. All but the poorest beneficiaries would share premium costs and would pay 20 per cent for the services provided, but no individual would pay more than $1,500 a year and no family more than $2,000 a year for health care.”
Chicago Tribune, “The A.M.A.’s subsidy plan” April 19, 1975 (emphasis added) (no author was cited).
Interestingly, in that same newspaper from April 19, 1975, advertisements show towels for $1.89, pants for teenagers for $4.99, a swivel rocker for $88, and a BBQ grill for $12.88. My how times have changed!
Those prices also indicate how much buying power was involved with the AMA’s proposal, and what it meant to suggest that an individual might have to pay up to $1,500 a year, and a family up to $2,000 a year, for health care – a lot of money back then!
In 1976, Pres. Ford proposed adding catastrophic coverage to Medicare, offset by increased cost sharing. These are examples of Pres. Ford (a Republican) creating more government involvement in health care and expanding health care to everyone.
After Pres. Ford, came Pres. Jimmy Carter from 1977-1981, a Democrat.
Pres. Carter campaigned on the notion of “universal health care for everyone;” however, once in office he decided instead to rein in costs, and not expand coverage. In the prior decade (1960), the consumer price index had increased by 79.7%, while hospital costs had risen 237%. President Carter proposed an across-the-board cap on hospital charges that would limit annual increases to 1.5 times any rise in the consumer price index.
Pres. Carter was also quoted from public speeches saying, “We must clean up the disgraceful Medicaid scandals.”
Pres. Carter’s stance on “universal” health care was: “that such a program would be financed through both the employer and the payroll taxes, as well as general revenue taxes. Patients would still be free to choose their own physician, but the federal government would set doctor’s fees and establish controls to monitor the cost and quality of health care.”
In May 1979, Senator Ted Kennedy, a Democrat, proposed a new universal national health insurance bill—offering a choice of competing federally-regulated private health insurance plans with no cost sharing financed by income-based premiums via an employer mandate and individual mandate, replacement of Medicaid by government payment of premiums to private insurers, and enhancement of Medicare by adding prescription drug coverage and eliminating premiums and cost sharing.
These are examples of Democrats, Pres. Carter, by not expanding health care coverage and reining in costs, and Sen. Kennedy, by proposing privatization of Medicaid, acting in a more conservative nature, or, as a conservative nature would be perceived today.
So when did the parties flip-flop? Why did the parties flip-flop? And the most important question…if we have been struggling with the exact same issues on health care for over 40 years, why has our health care system not been fixed? There has certainly been enough time, ideas, and proposed bills.
While I do not profess to know the answer, my personal opinion is the severe and debilitating polarizations of the two main political parties have rendered this country into a 40-year-old stalemate when it comes to health care reform and are the reason why the solution has not been adopted and put into practice.
Maybe back in 1979, when Senator Kennedy proposed replacing Medicaid with private insurance, Republicans refused to agree, simply because a Democrat proposed the legislation.
Today when Republican candidates campaign on privatizing Medicaid and the Democrats vehemently oppose such action, maybe the opposition is not to the idea, but to the party making the proposal.
Just a thought…
And here’s to the next 40!!!
Posted on January 7, 2015, in Accountability, Administrative Costs, Affordable Care Act, Budget, Federal Government, Federal Law, Freedom of Choice of Provider, General Assembly, Health Care Providers and Services, Hospital Medicaid Providers, Hospitals, Legislation, Medicaid, Medicaid Attorney, Medicaid Budget, Medicaid Costs, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Reform, Medicaid Services, Medicaid Spending, NC, North Carolina, Nursing Homes, Obamacare, Physicians, Privatization, Shared Savings, Tax Dollars, Taxes and tagged ACA, Affordable Care Act, AMA, American Medical Society, Democrats, Freedom of Choice of Provider, Gerald Ford, Health care, Health Care Reform, Health Care Subsidies, Health insurance, Hospital Care, Hospital Medicaid, Jimmy Carter, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Reform, Medicare, Nursing Homes, Premium Costs, Privatization, Privatization of Health Care, Republicans, Subsidies, Universal Health Care. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.
Happy Birthday!!! I enjoy reading your blogs. Thank you for thank you for taking the time to write them.
Knicole. Happy Birthday! You can’t be 40. How old does that make me. Enjoy your 40s. Paul
I absolutely agree that partisan politics has prevented us from reaching an accord on health care reform. I personally favor Medicare for all. As one who is looking at all of the really good options offered under Medicare this year (forty aint nothing), you have a nice blend of public and private insurance offerings. Medicare patients by and large love their insurance. The system is already in place and it takes the employer mandated insurance out of the equation. I presume employers could still offer to pay premiums for employees as an incentive for people to work for that employer. I do understand that if President Obama had offered this as his alternative, the screams of government run medicine would have been even louder than they were. However, I think we would have gotten a really good result over the long term (and perhaps may still if this option is ever embraced.)
Politics is a nasty mixture of marketing and propaganda fueled by money. However, it is vastly better than any known alternative. The economic interests of insurance companies, hospitals, providers, big pharma and even some attorneys are stakeholders in how we as individuals will receive health care. The Affordable Care Act is the result of this reality and for the most part, is a pretty good start on making some sense of health care policy going forward. Politics, as presented by the media, prevents us from quietly moving forward. So we noisily move forward in fits and starts. We need to keep nudging forward despite the noise.