Toward National Health Insurance in the United States: An historical outline, 1910–1979

Terry Wimberley
{"title":"Toward National Health Insurance in the United States: An historical outline, 1910–1979","authors":"Terry Wimberley","doi":"10.1016/0160-7995(80)90004-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The paper analyzes the legislative history of the movement toward national health insurance over the last 70 years and analyzes key periods in this history in terms of the value basis upon which legislation was proposed and also in terms of the decision making theory utilized throughout this period in the provision of health care for American citizens. This analysis resulted in the following conclusions: (1) The bulk of the legislation which has come before Congress over the last 70 years has been polarized around two disparate value bases (total comprehensive and compulsory versus limited, categorical and voluntary, and two distinct decision theories—rationale versus incremental). (2) Congress and the administration have demonstrated receptivity on a limited basis to a total comprehensive and compulsory/rational approach in times of great socio-economic upheaval. (3) In times of relative stability, Congress and the administration have tended to adopt a limited, categorical and voluntary stance toward national health care and have utilized an incremental approach in deliberating health policy. (4) In that the nation has experienced more periods of stability than instability over the last 70 years, the present health care system can be understood as being the product of a limited, categorical and voluntary philosophy toward health care coupled with an incremental approach to policy formulation. (5) In that the percentage of Federal dollars spent on health care has risen from 4.3% in 1963 to 12.7% in 1978, the effectiveness of a limited, categorical and a voluntary approach to health care planning is questionable. (6) In that the Federal government has only exhibited receptivity to a total comprehensive and compulsory approach to health care planning during times of great economic and social upheaval, it seemed unlikely that the 96th Congress would respond favorably to the health care legislation proposed by Senator Edward Kennedy and the Committee for National Health Insurance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":76948,"journal":{"name":"Social science & medicine. Medical economics","volume":"14 1","pages":"Pages 13-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1980-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0160-7995(80)90004-0","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social science & medicine. Medical economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160799580900040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The paper analyzes the legislative history of the movement toward national health insurance over the last 70 years and analyzes key periods in this history in terms of the value basis upon which legislation was proposed and also in terms of the decision making theory utilized throughout this period in the provision of health care for American citizens. This analysis resulted in the following conclusions: (1) The bulk of the legislation which has come before Congress over the last 70 years has been polarized around two disparate value bases (total comprehensive and compulsory versus limited, categorical and voluntary, and two distinct decision theories—rationale versus incremental). (2) Congress and the administration have demonstrated receptivity on a limited basis to a total comprehensive and compulsory/rational approach in times of great socio-economic upheaval. (3) In times of relative stability, Congress and the administration have tended to adopt a limited, categorical and voluntary stance toward national health care and have utilized an incremental approach in deliberating health policy. (4) In that the nation has experienced more periods of stability than instability over the last 70 years, the present health care system can be understood as being the product of a limited, categorical and voluntary philosophy toward health care coupled with an incremental approach to policy formulation. (5) In that the percentage of Federal dollars spent on health care has risen from 4.3% in 1963 to 12.7% in 1978, the effectiveness of a limited, categorical and a voluntary approach to health care planning is questionable. (6) In that the Federal government has only exhibited receptivity to a total comprehensive and compulsory approach to health care planning during times of great economic and social upheaval, it seemed unlikely that the 96th Congress would respond favorably to the health care legislation proposed by Senator Edward Kennedy and the Committee for National Health Insurance.

走向美国的国民健康保险:一个历史纲要,1910-1979
本文分析了过去70年来国民健康保险运动的立法历史,并分析了这一历史中的关键时期,根据立法提出的价值基础,以及在这一时期为美国公民提供医疗保健所使用的决策理论。这一分析得出了以下结论:(1)在过去70年里,国会通过的大部分立法围绕着两种截然不同的价值基础(完全全面和强制性vs有限,绝对和自愿,以及两种截然不同的决策理论-基本原理vs增量)两极分化。(2)在社会经济剧烈动荡的时期,国会和政府已经表现出在有限的基础上接受全面和强制性/理性的方法。(3)在相对稳定的时期,国会和行政当局倾向于对国家卫生保健采取有限的、明确的和自愿的立场,并在审议卫生政策时采用渐进的方法。(4)在过去的70年里,国家经历了更多的稳定时期而不是不稳定时期,因此,目前的医疗保健系统可以被理解为一种有限的、明确的、自愿的医疗保健理念与政策制定的增量方法相结合的产物。(5)由于用于医疗保健的联邦资金所占比例已从1963年的4.3%上升到1978年的12.7%,有限的、分类的和自愿的医疗保健规划方法的有效性值得怀疑。(6)由于联邦政府只在经济和社会剧变时期才表现出对全面全面和强制性的医疗保健计划方法的接受能力,第96届国会似乎不太可能对参议员爱德华·肯尼迪和国家健康保险委员会提出的医疗保健立法作出有利的反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信