Go Back   Just Us Nurses! A Forum for Nurses. Learn, Share, Discuss, Conversate. The Choice is Yours. Join Us Today! > Nursing Today > General Nursing Discussions

User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-25-2009, 07:29 PM
DutchgirlRN's Avatar
Owner/Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 7,923
Thanks: 3,899
Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,409 Posts
My Mood:
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Default The Story of Medicare - Fascinating!

I got to thinking....what was the political tone when the idea of Medicare was being tossed around, before it became law and after Medicare was created? Was one party for it and one party against it? From what I've researched it seems pretty similiar to what's going on today with the debate over nationalized health care. I'm not presenting this from one side or another. I'm not sure I have a solid opinion yet.

The story of Medicare

IF YOU listen to the current debate in Washington over proposals for some kind of national health care reform, the arguments that raged in the lead-up to the founding of Medicare--the government health care program for the elderly, which celebrated its 44th birthday on July 30--echo through to the current day.

When the administration of John F. Kennedy discussed a plan for government health care that would cover people of Social Security age, the American Medical Association (AMA) fought back, along with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, with a well-funded campaign--complete with a commercial featuring actor Ronald Reagan, who was determined to talk to America about an "imminent threat":

The someday-Governor-and-later-President Reagan finished his appeal by asking listeners to write their members of Congress with the warning:
And if you don't do this, and if I don't do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
In the decades before the founding of Medicare in 1965--alongside the Medicaid program that provided coverage to the indigent--the health care debate centered around a more all-encompassing government-run national health care plan. The Roosevelt and Truman administrations both saw several failed attempts at implementing some sort of compulsory national health care program--all of which were opposed by the AMA and the American Hospital Association (AHA).

According to the Physicians for a National Health Program, the AMA assessed its members an extra $25 each to resist national health insurance, and in 1945, it spent $1.5 million on lobbying efforts, which at the time was the most expensive lobbying effort in American history. An AMA pamphlet warned, "Would socialized medicine lead to socialization of other phases of life? Lenin thought so. He declared socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state."

Unions largely focused on negotiating health care benefits for their members in individual contracts with companies, devoting fewer resources to the larger fight for national health care.

In 1961, there were 800 commercial health carriers and 40 million individuals enrolled, according to John Geyman in The Corporate Transformation of Health Care. However, only a quarter of the population had health insurance. Two-thirds of people over 65 years of age had no hospital insurance. These statistics spoke to the overwhelming need for Medicare.

When Johnson signed Medicare into law on July 30, 1965, he said, "For the first time in the history of America, every senior citizen will be able to receive hospital care--not as a ward of the state, not as a charity case, but as an insured patient."

Medicare's impact was immediately felt by poor people around the country, who previously had been cut out of some of the most basic health care services.

And while civil rights were deliberately never discussed during the debate over the legislation, according to Social Security Administration (SSA) commissioner Robert Ball, Medicare also struck a blow against segregation.
Stories of African American patients being denied life-saving services at white-only hospitals, often with deadly results, were routine in the segregated South, even after the landmark Brown v. Board Supreme Court decision. Southern hospitals used the excuse that they were private institutions to avoid the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
Civil rights activists had targeted segregation in Southern hospitals. But with the passage of Medicare, hospitals and nursing homes that wanted to receive federal funding would no longer be able to discriminate. A staff of 1,000 SSA and Public Health Services staff people were immediately trained and sent throughout Southern hospitals to inspect hospitals for discrimination, according to Jill Quadagno and Steve McDonald in The New Deal and Beyond.
Undersecretary Wilbur Cohen said 20 years later:
On the day before Medicare went into effect, every hospital in the South, over every drinking fountain, over every bathroom, over every cafeteria, there were signs reading "Whites" and "Colored" for separate and presumably equal facilities. On the day that Medicare went into effect in the South, all those signs and separate facilities began to come down. In one day, Medicare and Medicaid broke the back of the segregated health services.
Cohen is likely exaggerating the immediacy of Medicare's impact on the Jim Crow South, but the story illustrates the undeniable link between poverty and racism in America--and why the challenge to discrimination couldn't be left up to the "states to decide."

The passage of Medicare gave credence to the idea that care for the aging and the poor is society's responsibility. The civil rights and anti-poverty movements infused American society at large--from the streets to the halls of government--with this attitude.
Of course, there was a gap between the rhetoric and the reality of Medicare.

Medical fees were still decided by providers, not the federal government, so costs were allowed to soar. And of course, there were those who found ways to profit off the new program--such as 1992 independent presidential candidate Ross Perot, whose Electronic Data Systems won a contract to computerize Medicare records that made Perot into a millionaire.

Medicare itself was a compromise in that it provided guaranteed health care for only a very targeted--and typically expensive, from the point of view of the medical inustry--group. It could never seriously challenge the power of the industry or offer an alternative to the millions of people whose health was at their mercy.

THIRTY YEARS later, during the Clinton years, the Democratic Party's promise of a "social contract" had faded away, and a new sun rose on the ideas of "personal responsibility" and "belt-tightening." The Clinton-era attacks on anti-poverty programs like Medicare and welfare were more harsh than Ronald Reagan could have dreamed of.

The Clinton administration also further privatized Medicare by handing over the delivery of care to private insurance companies, HMOs, with the claim that seniors would supposedly get more care for less money. This, of course, turned out not to be the case. Some 2.4 million seniors were forced to find new coverage, and often to change doctors, when many Medicare Plus Choice plans left the market because they weren't making enough profit.

All this set the stage for the Bush administration's further "modernization"--privatization--of Medicare and the Medicare drug program in 2003.
According to a PNHP study in 2002, Medicare is administered with an overhead of 3 percent, compared to overhead costs for private insurers that are five to nine times higher. Medicare gives a glimpse at the possibility of what a health program would look like that was concentrating on providing health care, not corporate profit.

Today, millions go without care, and millions more who actually have health insurance live in fear of getting sick enough that their insurance is put to the test. The same outcry in the 1960s that demanded something be done for sick people can be heard today.
We shouldn't have to settle for compromises. That's why our demand is Medicare for all.
http://socialistworker.org/print/200...ry-of-medicare
__________________
Send a private message to DutchgirlRN


Joanna MSN, APRN, FNP-BC

Reply With Quote Go to top
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DutchgirlRN For This Useful Post:
Nursing Forum, Nursing Education, Nursing School, Nursing Chat, Nursing Bulletin Board, Nursing Vent, RN, LPN
  #2  
Old 11-27-2009, 12:44 PM
Cindy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 210
Thanks: 108
Thanked 199 Times in 124 Posts
My Mood:
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Thanks, Dutchie. I hope you don't mind if I use the information. It will come in handy!
Reply With Quote Go to top
Nursing Forum, Nursing Education, Nursing School, Nursing Chat, Nursing Bulletin Board, Nursing Vent, RN, LPN
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.2.4 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.



Search only trustworthy HONcode health websites:

     
//-->