.
Feedback

Surprising Supporters of Federal Health Care Legislation

Both Democrats and some Republican presidents have recognized the inhumanity of not providing health care insurance for all Americans.

Imagine an extremist who adamantly opposes mandatory health insurance which will go into effect under President Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act. He is enraged by the Supreme Court decision and has threatened a violent response if forced to comply. Imagine how surprised he would be to find out several former Republican presidents also supported federal involvement in health care!

The enraged opponent might point out the "culprits;" Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton. "What else is new?" he might say. Of course, FDR made up a new national policy: all Americans have a right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. Let FDR pay for it.

And that other Democrat, Harry S. Truman, stated, “Our ultimate aim must be a comprehensive insurance system to protect all our people equally against insecurity and ill health."

But, there are other, surprising supporters of affordable health care to be found in the history books. See if you can guess who made the following statements:

A) “Many of our fellow Americans cannot afford to pay the costs of medical care… and they are not protected by adequate health insurance… I recommend, consequently, the establishment of a Federal health reinsurance service to encourage private health insurance organizations in offering broader benefits to insured individuals and families and coverage to more people.

“In addition, to improve medical care for the aged, the blind, dependent children, and the permanently and totally disabled who are public assistance recipients, I recommend the authorization of limited Federal grants to match State and local expenditures.”

B) “Twenty-five million Americans have no health care insurance at all, and millions of others have inadequate protection. Less than half of those under 65 years of age have protection against catastrophic health costs, and almost no one over 65 has protection, .such as preventive services, mental health care, outpatient services, and medication are often excluded from coverage. Many other essential
services are not adequately covered.

"This week, the Senate Finance Committee will begin hearings on health insurance legislation that could usher in a historic reform of the American health care system… I am confident that the executive and legislative branches of the Government, in a spirit of statesmanship and compromise, can work together to resolve the problems of providing health insurance legislation which meets the needs of all Americans.”

C) “My health care plan provides insurance security for all Americans while preserving and increasing the idea of choice. We make basic health insurance affordable for all low-income people not now covered.”

Answers:

A) President Dwight D .Eisenhower

B) President Richard Nixon

C) President George H. W. Bush

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Cheshire Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Tom Falconieri July 5, 2012 at 02:19 am
79% of physicians are less optimistic about medicine since the passage of health care reform. Fifty-three percent indicate they will consider opting out of insurance plans with passage of the bill. Worst of all, 66% indicate that they will consider opting out of all government-run programs. The same reform bill that will provide "care for all" may drive away more physician caregivers than attract previously uninsured patients.
For one, the bill addresses none of the issues most consistently ranked by physicians as the most critical for lowering costs and improving access. Tort reform, streamlining billing and payment, and fixing the flawed government formula for calculating physician reimbursement are given little, if any, serious attention. the government will be forced to take the path of least resistance to save money That means reducing physician reimbursement, just as the country is counting on even more physicians to be available. Physicians knew the health care bill had a "gotcha" buried deep inside. The only way it could be called "budget-neutral" was to implement significant reductions in physician payments. So just as we are hoping more physicians become available to treat the influx of 31 million more patients, the government is implementing a massive reduction in physician reimbursement (a 21% reduction in physician reimbursement went into effect April 1 meaning physician reimbursement has been declining for several years
Tin Foil Hat July 5, 2012 at 02:22 am
The problems wit the FDA are so voluminous it's hard to even pick a place to begin. The entire drug approval process is flawed. Honestly, EBM isn't appropriate for any mental health indication - a side issue. Approval packages MUST include failed studies not just cherry picked data.
I don't think you have a clue as to how drugs get approved or the food supply is "inspected". You would be a bit less cavalier if you did
--- July 5, 2012 at 03:05 am
Just for fun. America, behold the wise and intelligent Joe Biden, who is second in command.
(CNSNews.com) – Vice President Joe Biden told people attending an AARP town hall meeting that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money. “And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.” “We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said. “Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
rodger July 5, 2012 at 03:53 am
watch this - scary stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Phil July 5, 2012 at 03:53 am
Somehow, someway, and I do not know how this occurs, certain people either become assistant 3rd shift fryolator operators at a fast foot joint or become politicians like Biden, Pelosi, Reid, or our 3rd district Congress critter (and dumb as a rock) Rosa DeLauro.
While they are one step above too stupid to remember to breath, they try to control the lives of the rest of us. With people like this running things, we, as a nation, are screwed. BTW, I did not mean to insult rocks.
CitizenVoice July 5, 2012 at 06:15 am
Justice Roberts implied the mandate justification would be better supported under the tax code and not the commerce clause. In the tax code, "penalties" are imposed for several reasons ie not filing a return, late filing a return, underpayment of quarterly estimates, marriage penalty, trust fund penalty, abusive tax shelter penalty, the list of penalties is extensive. So even though the mandate will be dealt with under the tax code, it can still be called a penalty. Its just words, yet one more thing for the republicans to blow way out of proportion: "The biggest tax increase in history." OK, it will only affect about 1.5% of the country, mainly those who can afford but refuse to buy health insurance, and it only amounts to about $95 and in a few years may go as high as $650+/-. So why not buy it? Of course there are those who just don’t want to because they may feel 10ft tall & bullet-proof. That is until a catastrophic illness or injury lands them in the ER and the hospital helps cover their astronomical bill by raising my Tylenol to $10/pill, then my health insurance is charged and they pass the cost down to me. Nice! So, pardon me if I view the mandate as freeloader prevention. (continued...)
CitizenVoice July 5, 2012 at 06:15 am
Fortunately (from the looks of the newest poles), a lot of the country is wising up and not accepting the barrage of exaggerations, falsehoods, half-truths and downright lies spread by the R-wing since the inception of ACA bill. Gee, whatever happened to the "death panels?" I guess the thinking people are finally making it their business to educate themselves about this law. If most of you on this blog could pull yourselves away from FOX news(?), Limbaugh, Beck & the like, and read the ACA (I did as soon as it passed, and it only took about a long as reading 6 or 7 best-seller novels) you wouldn't sound like you're standing on such easily shakable ground.
Bill Fasula July 5, 2012 at 11:21 am
Leslie do you know what the 4th of July is Celebrating?
Steven Johnston July 5, 2012 at 11:41 am
Kevin, If America is "Basically last in the develped world" for medical care, then why do world leaders and the mega rich from other parts of the world flock here for healthcare? Our delivery system may need some tweeking but the technology and the science behind it make America the very best place to be treated when you become sick. Our doctors and nurses are absolutley the best in the world.
sebastian dangerfield July 5, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Brad,
Umm...Im not unaware that the segregationists no longer exist.... in fact, BRad, I said so.. . You cant see that? Strange? No, the point is , that while you hurl invective and charges of racism, the only credible racists are long gone, yet from the Democratic party. Your statement of "FDR needed them" is repulsive. But just again, to reassure me that your integrity is questionable, and your NEED to justify, outweighs your pursuit of truth---let me ask this question: If history will say that Romney "Needed the far right as part of his coalition," would that make those people that more acceptable to you , Brad? Are you against racism, or for the Democratic Party? Obviously the latter--because today's democratic party is against racism,--but who knows they may again switch, and Brad has taken a long time, to justify their inclusion in the party in the past. Therefore, I have to assume, if the ends justify the means, Brad is Ok, with racism --when and only when, the Democrats "need" them. Nice, Brad-- Its repugnant --but certainly the way most people feel these days. All I need to do is find a way to justify my actions; maybe find out why it was different, or how it all worked out, and then I dont have to acknowledge its wrong--. When my party switches, I ll switch with them--and never regret my former actions. To Brad, Japanese internment camps were ok--FDR implemented them as well--that guy who only was for oppression when he "needed to".
Steven Johnston July 5, 2012 at 12:09 pm
It is nothing like car insurance. There is no mandate that people without cars buy insurance. Some chose public transportation exclusively. There are people that own cars but only use them on private land. They are not required to have insurance on those vehicles.
sebastian dangerfield July 5, 2012 at 12:11 pm
luca duff
you looking forward to going to jail for a federal crime? Now youre trying to use my name? Fine , man... knock yourself, out. But youre going to jail..
Fturnbull99 July 5, 2012 at 12:21 pm
How many of you are overweight or obese - fat, dumb and happy? How many of you are racists but deny it continually? There is plenty of whine and cheese to go around - spread the butter and eat some more. Anarchy is what you reap.
Bill Hillman July 5, 2012 at 12:49 pm
http://my.brainshark.com/The-President-s-8-Billion-Coincidence-356086344
Ed July 5, 2012 at 01:51 pm
It's completely irresponsible to pass broad-reaching legislation when half the country is in disagreement with the way it is drafted. This goes well BEYOND the individual mandate (which I do not support). It's healthy to have disagreement on issues but these opposing views should be embraced and not dismissed. This is what has happened with the passage of the Healthcare Law. No American is saying we do not need reform but are being portrayed (but virtue of this opposing viewpoint) as not wanting children to have healthcare, people with pre-existing conditions to not have medical coverage, and so on. Some proponents of this law are unwilling to acknowledge and respect our view, they would rather presume to believe we do not want what is best for our nation, but in the contrary believe they know what is best for us. This is very disturbing and tragic. What was once a true democracy has taken its first step towards Socialism.
Ben Rodriguez July 5, 2012 at 02:03 pm
Well said. It took guts and leadership to pass health reform. The Social Security argument took the same track back in the day.
DAY July 5, 2012 at 02:12 pm
Ben - Social Security has trillions in unfunded liabilities. The money that was promised to us as part of this social compact will have to be reduced in the next decade. Few politicians have the guts to highlight this (excluding Paul Ryan), and let's not even mention the financial condition of Medicare. So after you're done patting yourselves on the back for passing this latest entitlement/program, I wonder if you can tell everyone with a straight face whether it's sustainable.
Ed July 5, 2012 at 02:28 pm
@CitizenVoice...I disagree with your presumption with those affected and it's been my observation that those most critical of those in disagreement of this decision are the least impacted. IMO, Judge Robert's decision was two-fold...first, the clever language within the law and how he interpreted it was one contributing factor in his decision, the other being the need to regain respect for the SCOTUS by Americans who were critical of their 2000 election decision. The bottom line is that half the country's concerns fell on deaf ears and presumptions made behind the reasoning for those disagreements. Our DEM leadership felt it was not politically necessary to gain consensus of those with difffering views because they knew their loyal voter base would agree with it and ensure their re-election. The biggest problem I see with proponents is their assumption behind why we are in disagreement. They would rather presume than listen, acknowledge, and respect their opposing views. This is not the democratic way. But proponents refuse to hear it, they rather gloat in this politically twisted victory. BTW, you ought to change your pen name. It implies you are speaking for everyone.
Paul Alexander July 5, 2012 at 02:32 pm
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
- Thomas Jefferson Ooops. Too late.
DAY July 5, 2012 at 02:36 pm
A brilliant quote by a brilliant man. Thank you for sharing
Ed July 5, 2012 at 02:54 pm
@CitizenVoice....That's a bit presumptive. Let's look at the viewpoints simply expressed in support vs against on this thread. I put little weight on some of these polls. What makes you believe that the decision made by the SCOTUS will change some Americans' views of this law. And to imply they are "wising up" is frankly insulting and lends itself to believe you have no respect or regard for opposing views. Which is tragic.
Jay July 5, 2012 at 02:55 pm
why are you feeding this avi troll??
Ed July 5, 2012 at 02:57 pm
"A little matter will move a party, but it must be something great that moves a nation."
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
Ed July 5, 2012 at 03:01 pm
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin
Ed July 5, 2012 at 03:04 pm
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it. "
George Washington
WoodbridgeMom July 5, 2012 at 03:08 pm
It's done. Deal with it and move on
Claiborne Clapsnyder July 5, 2012 at 03:11 pm
Or not.
http://www.redstate.com/barrypopik/2010/01/31/origin-myth-of-the-lobbyist-glenn-beck-uses-another-fake-thomas-jefferson-quote/ http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/two-enemies-people-are-criminals-and-governmentquotation
DAY July 5, 2012 at 03:14 pm
I can can answer only for myself. I'm fascinated by his, and his sycophants', method of debate. Their toolbox includes imagined violence, lies and distortions which they use to silence the opposition. A large part of their identity is based on a false vanities: they believe they were the only ones who fought for civil rights, you see, and they give themselves license to cavalierly and freely accuse others of "racism", even when it isn't manifested. The second false vanity is that of altruism; in this, they posit themselves as progressives whose compassion for humanity is so deep that it justifies any means (even lying and ignoring laws) to achieve their ends, because their cause is righteous and just.
DAY July 5, 2012 at 03:16 pm
It may be undone after November.
Fred July 5, 2012 at 03:24 pm
If its not good enough for my congress and senate reps as well as millions of union members that Obama gave waivers to it's not good enough for me.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something