Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Historical Change


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Historical Change Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Historical Change - 3/20/2010 10:53:51 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
WASHINGTON – Rarely does the government, that big, clumsy, poorly regarded oaf, pull off anything short of war that touches all lives with one act, one stroke of a president's pen. Such a moment now seems near.

We are perched upon the edge of a historical change. If this bill passes, it will place Obama up there with Johnson. This article takes a look at the historical significance.

After a year of riotous argument, decades of failure and a century of spoiled hopes, the United States is reaching for a system of medical care that extends coverage nearly to all citizens. The change that's coming, if Sunday's tussle in the House goes President Barack Obama's way, would reshape a sixth of the economy and shatter the status quo.

To the ardent liberal, Obama's health care plan is a shadow of what should have been, sapped by dispiriting downsizing and trade-offs.

To the loud foe on the right, it is a dreadful expansion of the nanny state.

To history, it is likely to be judged alongside the boldest acts of presidents and Congress in the pantheon of domestic affairs. Think of the guaranteed federal pensions of Social Security, socialized medicine for the old and poor, the civil rights remedies to inequality.


Take a moment to think about this. SS and Medicare, two things we could not live without in this country now... and Civil Rights. How many recall how ardently the Civil Rights movement was lobbied, fought and debated against.

Can anyone imagine these gone?

Change is coming, it now appears, but in steps, not overnight. The major expansion of coverage to 30 million people — powered by subsidies, employer obligations, a mandate for most Americans to carry insurance, new places to buy it and rules barring insurance companies from turning sick people away — is four years out.

In contrast, on June 30, 1966, after a titanic struggle capped by the bill signing a year earlier, President Lyndon Johnson launched government health insurance for the elderly with three simple words, as if flicking a switch: "Medicare begins tomorrow."


If only... but at least Obama knows it couldnt be that simple. The screams heard about paying for this first were heard.

Yet if the overhaul goes through, he and LBJ will share a distinction: the only two presidents to succeed with a transcendent health care law.

You can be sure Obama, a student of history, is aware of how LBJ captured the moment when Medicare became law with his pen. That happened in Independence, Mo., in the presence of the very first American to sign up for the program: Harry Truman. The ex-president had ended a world war but could not achieve national health insurance in his time.

"Care for the sick, serenity for the fearful," Johnson promised that day. "In this town, and a thousand other towns like it, there are men and women in pain who will now find ease."

Said Truman: "I am glad to have lived this long."

Ted Kennedy lived long enough to see a goal of his lifetime take shape but not long enough for it to happen. His death last summer was almost the death of the whole plan because a Republican won his Senate seat, changed the voting balance and left despondent Democrats in search of a second wind, which they found.


Historical moments!

Why is this so hard? In part, because self-reliance and suspicion of a strong central government intruding into people's lives are rooted in the founding of the republic, and still strong.

The colonial insurgents who dumped British tea into Boston harbor inspired the name and agitating spirit of today's tea party protesters, who rolled a taped-together health care bill up the Capitol steps like toilet paper to show their disdain. "Grandma's not Shovel-Ready," said one of their signs last week, playing off a fear the aged will see their care rationed away.


And we are back to that argument once again.

In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a national mental health bill on the basis that it would be unconstitutional to treat health as anything but a private matter that is none of the government's business.

Seventy-five years later, the American Medical Association denounced proposals for organized medical services as an "incitement to revolution" at the hands of "Medical Soviets."

And that wasn't even about government-run health care. The AMA's fierce opposition to collectivism included objections to private health insurance, the norm today, and the pooling of doctors into what became health maintenance organizations decades later.



Amazing how much the AMA has been against change over the years. Oddly enough, HMO's and their ilk is, in part, what is wrong with health care today.

Why the creep of government in health care? In part, because individualism isn't the entire American story. The idea of watching out for each other is also in the nation's fabric.

Besides, as much as Americans hate overbearing government and higher taxes, give them a federal benefit and then just try to take it away. Today's hot potato becomes tomorrow's cherished check.

That's one reason government programs grow — and why Democrats dared to push for a less than popular package mere months from congressional elections, when people were telling their leaders to create jobs instead.

Johnson, full of beans after his Medicare victory, realized all of this.

"The doubters predicted a scandal; we gave them a success story," he crowed a month after the law took effect, as hundreds of thousands of patients entered hospitals for treatment covered by the government and some 6 million children and needy adults began getting benefits.

"Where are the doubters tonight?" he asked. "Where are the prophets of crisis and catastrophe? Well, some of them are signing their applications; some of them are mailing in their Medicare cards because they now want to share in the success of this program."

Obama can only hope for such a first-blush reception. He took on the cause of universal coverage after a campaign in which he did not promise it, intending only to secure insurance for all children and shrink the pool of uninsured adults. His health care ambition grew in office, quickly.

More than a quarter century before, Ted Kennedy came close to the prize with none other than the Republican president, Richard Nixon, who embraced ideas that mainstream Republicans today cannot tolerate. Nixon was ready to force businesses to provide health insurance to their workers or pay heavy penalties.

Sound familiar? It will.

At its core, Nixon's proposal is a pillar of Obama's plan today. Nixon's willingness to subsidize coverage for the working poor is also seen in the plan, though writ larger.

Back then, Kennedy's union and liberal allies gambled that by spurning Nixon, they'd get something better later. They didn't. In similar fashion years after that, President Bill Clinton aimed high and crashed hard.

Clinton no doubt drew on his own failure when, in December, he advised Democrats to pass what they could manage and not make it an all-or-nothing fight. "America," he said, "can't afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Obama absorbed these lessons.

For him, a system with government as the sole or principal payer of everyone's medical bills was a nonstarter, nice for the ideologues and other countries but not the American way. He would have liked the option of a government-run plan competing in the marketplace, but didn't need it.

For months he stood so far back from the legislative nitty-gritty that it was hard to tell what he stood for.

In the end, he stood for more than the incremental steps that succeeded in the past, and for less than the towering ideas that failed.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_moment_in_history

Change is coming. This is the closest we have been. It has become a debate in every political campaign.

Its time. Thats why all the upset. Heaven forbid a democrat have such a monumental impact on history.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Historical Change - 3/20/2010 1:55:47 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
Afternoon tazzy,

Cool write up. Indeed history is going to be made by virtue of a few things going on with this agenda.

This will be the first bill of this magnitude to pass where the only thing bipartisan about it is the opposition. Civil Rights, Medicare, and Social Security all garnered votes from both parties. Which tells a huge story about what has been missing from the current process, the lack of consensus building. Instead of trying to build consensus so that the current bill could garner support from both sides of the aisle, those in power counted on their overwhelming majorities to strongarm it through both houses. Even then they ran into problems from their own members and had to bribe, threaten, and even out some of their own just to barely get it this far.

Which brings us to another first, as far as I have been able to find. This will be the first time that a bill is so unacceptable by the majorities in both houses that the proposed comibination of parlimentary maneuvers are needed to even get close to passing it. The House is about to try and deem the Senate's bill as voted on and approved, because they can't get the votes to actually approve it, which is required in order to send a reconciliation bill back to the Senate because they can't get the necessary votes to pass it through normal means in the Senate. The constitutionality of these moves combined will definitely be challenged.

Yet another historical first will be the mandate to purchase health insurance or pay a fine because somebody is a citizen. Nobody is arguing about whether Congress has the power to tax, however I am unaware of them having the power to force the people to buy a particular commodity or be subject to fines and jail time. Expect to see many challenges to the constitutionality of these mandates.

Finally, not much has been talked about (at least that I have read yet) around here concerning the last minute add-ons, such as the student loan bill. I am disgusted by the structuring of that little beauty of a bill. The Fed will be taking over all student loans, save one bank that just happens to be important to a particular Dem in North Dakota who is the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee...

Overall, the smoke and mirrors added to the outright bribes and the actual legislation make this bill an historical first on many grounds. It may even become the fastest bill to be thrown out by the SCOTUS.

I wish you well,
Thadius

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Historical Change - 3/20/2010 2:08:54 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline


Historical change:


quote:

Key House Democrat: "There Are No Rules Here ... We Make Them Up As We Go Along"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbHTJSu_2Lk



Historical.


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Historical Change - 3/20/2010 2:16:18 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
220....yep change is a coming!

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Historical Change - 3/20/2010 3:17:48 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
Gosh- I did not want to rain on the parade- but that write up was dazzlingly  pathetic.



(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Historical Change - 3/20/2010 3:51:29 PM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline
I am disappointed with the entire fiasco.

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!


Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Historical Change - 3/20/2010 5:50:19 PM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
What’s the matter with Democrats? This thing hardly can be called  "reform".  The sign that the drug companies send lobbyists to Democrats FOR supporting the "reform" tells the story. They did not really have to write "business friendly"  legislation as there is no bipartisan (Republicans are generally thought to fighting business interest) support anyway. The only conclusion is that we have an another bunch of corporate Democrats in charge of the legislative process.

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Historical Change - 3/20/2010 8:46:32 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

220....yep change is a coming!



It sure is.





_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Historical Change - 3/20/2010 10:16:09 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

This will be the first bill of this magnitude to pass where the only thing bipartisan about it is the opposition. Civil Rights, Medicare, and Social Security all garnered votes from both parties. Which tells a huge story about what has been missing from the current process, the lack of consensus building. Instead of trying to build consensus so that the current bill could garner support from both sides of the aisle, those in power counted on their overwhelming majorities to strongarm it through both houses. Even then they ran into problems from their own members and had to bribe, threaten, and even out some of their own just to barely get it this far.


From my reading, The republicans, along with a few dems, were the opposition to the Medicare bill.

The first obstacle was the opposition of the Republican Party to what were Democratic initiatives. During the debates on Truman's proposals stalwart Republicans like Robert Taft of Ohio counterposed plans which did not require the creation of government programs. Taft's plan, and similar alternatives during the Eisenhower years, were generally based on providing subsidies to private insurance companies to create incentives for them to cover the aged population. So the parties were divided over how to best approach the problem of medical care for the aged. Since the strength of either party was never overwhelming during this period, this divide was a serious obstacle to action. (The strength of the two parties was roughly equal, despite some ups and downs, until the landslide victory of Johnson over Barry Goldwater in 1964 Presidential election.)

The second, and most powerful obstacle, was the organized opposition of special interest groups, especially the American Medical Association (AMA). The AMA's campaign against the first Truman proposal actually marked the start of the AMA's role as a political lobby. Throughout all the various proposals, up to and including the final bill in 1965, the AMA was a major block to any change in the status quo. The AMA argued that any involvement by the government in the medical care profession was the equivalent of socialized medicine. This argument, especially during the height of the Cold War hysteria, had real force.

The final obstacle, somewhat surprisingly, was the Democratic Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Wilbur Mills of Arkansas. All Social Security legislation has to pass through Ways and Means in the House; and at the height of his political power, very little passed through Ways and Means without Wilbur Mills' approval. Actually, Medicare legislation passed in the Senate during the height of the 1964 Presidential campaign. On September 2, 1964 the Senate passed, for the first time in the nation's history, a national health care bill for the aged, by a vote of 49 to 44-one of the 44 being the NO vote of Barry Goldwater, who interrupted his campaign in Arizona and flew back to Washington to cast his vote against Medicare. But the Senate program was blocked in Conference with the House by a stubborn Mills, who refused to go along. (13)


http://www.larrydewitt.net/Essays/MedicareDaddy.htm

This was a very interesting read. Might be good for those history buffs among us.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Historical Change - 3/20/2010 10:35:24 PM   
InvisibleBlack


Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Yet if the overhaul goes through, he and LBJ will share a distinction: the only two presidents to succeed with a transcendent health care law.


You do realize that by the end of his first term in office, Lyndon Johnson was so unpopular he dropped out as a candidate during his re-election bid after it became obvious that he wouldn't even win the Democratic primary as the incumbent candidate?

Were I Barack Obama, I'd be terrified of comparisons to LBJ.

_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Historical Change - 3/20/2010 10:37:37 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
Ever thought that maybe Obama doesnt care about relection? Wouldnt that be refreshing! Sadly not enough in office care enough to even attempt to do the right thing in the face of that very threat of not being re-elected.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to InvisibleBlack)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Historical Change - 3/20/2010 11:28:30 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Yet if the overhaul goes through, he and LBJ will share a distinction: the only two presidents to succeed with a transcendent health care law.


You do realize that by the end of his first term in office, Lyndon Johnson was so unpopular he dropped out as a candidate during his re-election bid after it became obvious that he wouldn't even win the Democratic primary as the incumbent candidate?

Were I Barack Obama, I'd be terrified of comparisons to LBJ.
Hate to rain on this particular parade....but I am willing to bet that you know full well that his decision not to run and his fear of not receiving his parties nomination was driven just about in its entirety by a war in South East Asia!

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to InvisibleBlack)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Historical Change - 3/20/2010 11:30:07 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Ever thought that maybe Obama doesnt care about relection? Wouldnt that be refreshing! Sadly not enough in office care enough to even attempt to do the right thing in the face of that very threat of not being re-elected.
See above post Tazzy...IB was came up a little short of honest with that bullshit.

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Historical Change Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078