3 ms·

Explaining away US healthcare as an artifact of WWII by claiming European countries turned to nation health schemes because of economic ruins ignores one very i

Explaining away US healthcare as an artifact of WWII by claiming European countries turned to nation health schemes because of economic ruins ignores one very important counterpoint: Canadian healthcare. Canada had no wartime ruin, and indeed, excelled after the war by advances in industrialization from the demands of WWII-- much like the US. Actually, Canada got it's universal healthcare because of the efforts of Tommy Douglas and the CCF in Saskatchewan and an entire history of social democracy in Canada that's worth studying. Sufficient to say, I think the author needs to look deeper into the social fabric of American life to see the barriers to socialized healthcare.

lsaferite 9y ago
Honest question. Did Canada have the same situation with a mandated pay-raise freeze and the end-run around that by companies in the form of company provided, tax-free, health care benefits? It seems, according to the article, that this is the base situation that entrenched company paid health plans in the first place and prevented Truman from getting traction with a national health plan.
- api_or_ipa 9y ago
  Like I mentioned, Canada implemented many of the same wartime rations on goods and controls on wages-- with the distinction that Canada was under wartime restrictions for twice as long as the US. All said, over 10% of the population served in the military with very little conscription due to internal conflicts with French-Canadians. The pressure to keep wages was certainly there, although I can't find resources on if and how companies sweetened the deal for employees with other benefits. Before the war, many provinces had attempted to pass healthcare legislation but were halted by financial limitations or from opposition from doctors. Shortly after the war Saskatchewan managed to pass legislation to subsidize doctor visits by entrenching a common practice for communities to pool resources to attract doctors to service rural and remote parts of the province. Perhaps this is the distinction: local and provincial governments across the country were involved right from the beginning in providing healthcare. Canada's relatively homogenous citizenry may have also helped: most Anglophone Canadians saw themselves as a body of British subjects and this likely helped themselves band together to provide a common good. I suspect that segregation in many places in the US acted to form healthcare in a less communal nature around private businesses where discrimination was easy to enforce.
mikestew 9y ago
This article describes how employer-sponsored healthcare started, but it avoids the reasons why it continued. And the reason Truman didn't get support for his universal healthcare plan was the "S" word: "socialism". From http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/november-19-1945-harry-truman-calls-national-health-insurance-program/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/november-19-1945-harry-t... (first link I found, it's documented numerous places): "Almost as soon as the reinvigorated bill was announced, the once-powerful American Medical Association (AMA) capitalized on the nation’s paranoia over the threat of Communism and, despite Truman’s assertions to the contrary, attacked the bill as “socialized medicine." Never mind that Mussolini's brand of socialism might be just a tad different than the kind that gives you socialized medicine, but one need merely utter the word to get those knees a-jerkin'.
- VeronicaJJ123 9y ago
  Socialism brings ruin to whatever it touches. Canadian healthcare is not an exception but Venezuelan and Cuban healthcare are much better examples.
  - dang 9y ago
    You've posted quite a few generic-ideological-battle-style comments to HN. Those are off-topic here. Would you please read the site rules and follow them when commenting? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- pc2g4d 9y ago
  "socialism" may have been the instrument, but why did the AMA use it to scare people out of supporting Truman's plan? Because they felt the plan encroached on their power. That's why the AMA advocated for expanded private insurance---as a bulwark against government takeover of medical care. So it may be that the "P" word is more important: "protectionism". See http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/06/christy_ford_ch.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/06/christy_ford_ch.htm...

lsaferite 9y ago

Honest question. Did Canada have the same situation with a mandated pay-raise freeze and the end-run around that by companies in the form of company provided, tax-free, health care benefits? It seems, according to the article, that this is the base situation that entrenched company paid health plans in the first place and prevented Truman from getting traction with a national health plan.

api_or_ipa 9y ago
Like I mentioned, Canada implemented many of the same wartime rations on goods and controls on wages-- with the distinction that Canada was under wartime restrictions for twice as long as the US. All said, over 10% of the population served in the military with very little conscription due to internal conflicts with French-Canadians. The pressure to keep wages was certainly there, although I can't find resources on if and how companies sweetened the deal for employees with other benefits. Before the war, many provinces had attempted to pass healthcare legislation but were halted by financial limitations or from opposition from doctors. Shortly after the war Saskatchewan managed to pass legislation to subsidize doctor visits by entrenching a common practice for communities to pool resources to attract doctors to service rural and remote parts of the province. Perhaps this is the distinction: local and provincial governments across the country were involved right from the beginning in providing healthcare. Canada's relatively homogenous citizenry may have also helped: most Anglophone Canadians saw themselves as a body of British subjects and this likely helped themselves band together to provide a common good. I suspect that segregation in many places in the US acted to form healthcare in a less communal nature around private businesses where discrimination was easy to enforce.

mikestew 9y ago

This article describes how employer-sponsored healthcare started, but it avoids the reasons why it continued. And the reason Truman didn't get support for his universal healthcare plan was the "S" word: "socialism". From http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/november-19-1945-harry-truman-calls-national-health-insurance-program/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/november-19-1945-harry-t... (first link I found, it's documented numerous places): "Almost as soon as the reinvigorated bill was announced, the once-powerful American Medical Association (AMA) capitalized on the nation’s paranoia over the threat of Communism and, despite Truman’s assertions to the contrary, attacked the bill as “socialized medicine." Never mind that Mussolini's brand of socialism might be just a tad different than the kind that gives you socialized medicine, but one need merely utter the word to get those knees a-jerkin'.

VeronicaJJ123 9y ago
Socialism brings ruin to whatever it touches. Canadian healthcare is not an exception but Venezuelan and Cuban healthcare are much better examples.
- dang 9y ago
  You've posted quite a few generic-ideological-battle-style comments to HN. Those are off-topic here. Would you please read the site rules and follow them when commenting? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
pc2g4d 9y ago
"socialism" may have been the instrument, but why did the AMA use it to scare people out of supporting Truman's plan? Because they felt the plan encroached on their power. That's why the AMA advocated for expanded private insurance---as a bulwark against government takeover of medical care. So it may be that the "P" word is more important: "protectionism". See http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/06/christy_ford_ch.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/06/christy_ford_ch.htm...