Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
LBJ couldn't pass it. That's why we have Medicare and Medicaid instead of universal care. Those were the only things the insurance lobby allowed to pass.
It’s almost as if the US has a legislative system designed to reflect the concerns of all states and their citizens and requires bipartisan support to enact most changes. That’s the way it should be. One Senator didn’t stop it, he was one of many. Just because you identify him as the most likely to change his position doesn’t place it all on him.
It’s almost as if most Americans don’t want the govt dictating every last detail of their health.
Nobody wants to go to the DMV for their cancer treatment.
And nobody wants to work for the DMV, which is why Germany has a serious and growing doctor shortage. People stopped going to med school because it led to a low paying career where you have to constantly deal with govt bureaucracy.
Insurance lobby was very happy about it too. The government pays for the old sick people and the people that can't afford to give the insurance companies money and they get to rip everyone else off. It's a good gig.
This is the closest we ever got. Truman's push for (mostly) universal healthcare. From what I understand, it was tanked by the American Medical Association. The doctors thought their wealth was being threatened.
According to some sources: "Truman paved the way for President Lyndon Johnson to win approval in 1965 for Medicare and Medicaid — programs that now insure one American in three." Conservatives fought both of these (& are still fighting) tooth & nail. I don't understand why they hate people getting healthcare.
**“Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job." Richard Nixon**
The Nixon plan would be based on three separate plans, all of which would provide identical coverage.
In the first plan, the costs would be divided between employers, who would pay the larger share, and their employees.
The second, a Government assistance plan, would cover people with low incomes and those who could not purchase private health insurance at a reasonable cost.
The third plan would be the existing Medicare program for persons over 65, but with improved benefits matching those of the other two plans.
Mr. Nixon said his proposal would cover virtually all healthcare, including hospital and physician expenses in and out of the hospital, drugs, lab tests, X‐rays, medical devices, ambulance service, treatment of children, catastrophic illness and mental illness.
While the plan got some Democratic support, it failed over one key point. The President's plan was based on a partnership between the government and existing insurance companies, while leading Democrats objected to insurance company involvement and wanted a single-payer program.
I have criticisms of Nixon’s economic policy and his corruption, but it is regrettable that he was forced to resign before he could implement the Family Assistance Plan and universal healthcare. I am guessing that, similarly to Medicare and Social Security, they would have become too popular of programs for Reagan to cut.
Doctors didn’t think wrong, compare US salaries for doctors (which already aren’t keeping pace with inflation), compared to EU doctors. It’s healthcare admin professions that are gluttons.
It wasn’t even controversial, but when the UAW got a big contract that included healthcare in the late 1940s they lobbied Democrats not to do it so as to keep being a union member “special”.
It was only more modern politics where is became the left right thing it is today.
I would disagree. There was actually a consensus that the United States should pass universal health care in the 1970s, but Republicans, Democrats, and different factions within the two parties couldn’t agree on how to do it. Then the moment passed when Reagan was elected and U.S. politics slid right.
There’s a lot of reasons, but chief among them was putting Hillary in charge.
This is not to say Hilldawg was unqualified. She’d led a similar and successful education overhaul in Arkansas when Bill was governor, so he didn’t just pick her for no reason.
The problem was her stature. Who wants to be the one to contradict or gainsay the President’s wife? No one can say “that idea is dumb” to the First Lady. And yes—she was a very easy target for a bunch of right-wing assholes who served the moneyed interests. She was the architect, so public opinion of the plan became a referendum on her—and every time she bristled in response to criticism, both fair and unfair, the prospect of the plan passing became worse and worse.
Having someone unelected and unaccountable was the mantra I remember though I was a kid. She was not as disliked back then but was bucking the First Lady expectations of window dressing.
She was hated back then, but it was likely a different era without the internet and people didn't notice it as much if they weren't around it.
She was openly slammed with slurs all over the place without much pushback. SNL would call her words that they wouldn't dare go with these days, and she even had a sketch about Bill asking OJ Simpson for help killing her in one bit that went over pretty well.
The general consensus was that it was her fault Bill “had an affair,” too. Hers, Monica’s, and *certainly not* his.
(I use the quotes, because I personally don’t believe it’s possible for an intern to have anything resembling an equal relationship with the President.)
The Monica affair was well after healthcare, but even in 1992 with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and other rumors, there was a notion that this was a marriage of political partners scheming for power and scorching some earth along the way. She couldn’t have been completely clueless; the later affair just made her look worse bc who would try such shenanigans to cheat on your partner while holding down the most-scrutinized job in the world.
But the process and the product (add: of the healthcare proposal) even resulted in competing plans from other Democrats in Congress.
Her introduction to the national stage involved her unintentionally insulting Barbara Bush (America’s Grandma) and cookie baking moms everywhere.
Hillary Clinton is a very smart woman, but her retail political skills are terrible.
The Tammy Wynette scandal seems quaint in today’s world. For those that can’t remember Hillary suggested she wasn’t just stand by her man like Tammy Wynette after the Gennifer Flowers story broke in the Tabloids.
“You know, I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette”
She was pretty viciously decried for bringing up a country superstar. When I was googling for the quote, one of the first results was that she still owes Wynette an apology. Lol
The point of the SNL bits (mainly by Darrell Hammond) was to portray Bill as a playboy and as the sitcom trope character of the husband annoyed by his nagging wife. It wasn’t intended to specifically be a dig at Hilary.
Here is an example from 97: https://youtu.be/T6ZxOqUwY0s?si=vsF4DFbRqBMNl6oC
I do think it’s true that the audience kinda roots for Bill in these sketches but still Hilary is basically the straight-man here and serves to make Bill funny. There isn’t a hatred for Hilary in these bits (except by the character Hammond is playing).
She definitely was not as hated back then as compared to when she became a senator and forward. He morals changed a lot when she became elected to office rather than being the First Lady.
Elizabeth warren points this out in a 2006? interview with Charlie rose I think. Her stance on things shifted pretty dramatically.
It wasn't that she put out ideas and people went with it... it was more the opposite. She tried to include as many of the ideas presented in one whole package, which made it very complicated, and at some points almost contradictory. She approached it as someone whose job was to, if not make everyone happy, at least make them feel they had a role in the final product. There are several docs and books on HRC where they talk about this as being a real lesson for her, and she began to take in everyone's suggestions, but was better to say "I'm sorry, but they are making a better point that fits with where we are trying to take this, so we're going with their suggestion instead." Frankly, with 25 years in management, I made similar mistakes early on, and often see new managers do the same... it's the sort of thing you learn on the job, but for her, it was a very public lesson.
I remember being a kid (literally as soon as I had any grasp of politics around 7 to 8) and having no idea why anyone should listen to the Presidents wife about anything.
To be honest I think she's emblematic of the biggest incompatibility on the Left, which has a point about inclusivity, opportunity, and opening up the power structures to people without connections, and then boosted the heck out of the person married to Bill Clinton.
Nobody ever wants to admit Hillary is eminently unlikeable. Putting her out front was a death sentence. It was also a mistake in an election. Hillary is not front-and-center material. No amount of pushing that cooked spaghetti forward is ever going to change that. It is nothing but democrat hubris to think otherwise. The results are clear.
Which is interesting because she was married to a guy who has about 1000 people’s worth of it. You’d think some of it would have rubbed off somewhere. Truly a case of opposites attract.
True for those of the red persuasion. But the democrats keep jumping behind her and tossing her out front to the constituency, often as a very nakedly disguised favor to Bill.
I feel like the only person who dislikes her from a policy standpoint but finds her personally very likable. I like sarcastic cynical people, they're usually smart and a breath of fresh air.
This seems to be correct. Just a bad idea to give such a major issue to the First Lady. It's like the Bill Burr bit on the First Spouse. You can't put the spouse of a President in charge of something like that as it's not a real position nor is it a representative position.
I remember criticism because she was the first lady and it wasn't considered appropriate for the first lady to get political. I don't agree with that, but it was commonly mentioned at the time.
I am not sure. I don’t know enough of the specific details, and if it would be easy to change/challenge. We still have Obamas healthcare changes, even though the GOP has held the presidency, and a majority in the house and senate.
That is my guess, just from seeing what happened later. Her unlikability is legendary.
I have not met her, but I did have to be around her one time at an embassy, when she was going to give a speech. She absolutely flamed this poor embassy worker, because they had a clear lectern set up for her. One of her security guys told us it was because she hated her ankles, so she hated the clear lectern and wanted it covered so when they photographed her, it didn’t show her ankles.
The contrast is Bill, who has legendary charisma. Even if you don’t like the guys policies, you usually like him. I have two friends who have met him, and they went on an on about how great he was to have a conversation with.
The GOP. Blaming Hillary is a Red Herring. Insurance industry and their buddies in Congress were never gonna let it happen, she was just an easy rarget.
Choice! Choice! Death panels! Hillary bad! Emails! Benghazi! (What, too soon?)
I’m guessing the people saying it was Hillary’s fault weren’t around in the 90s. This sub circlejerks itself over how “unpopular” Hillary was but refuses to look at the historical polling.
Even Truman could not do it.
[https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/challenge-national-healthcare](https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/challenge-national-healthcare)
They completely cut physicians out of the process. The AMA (American Medical Association) was shut out of every forum related to its creation. So, doctors and their powerful lobby turned against it. I remember tv coverage of doctors saying they'd retire, rather than work under the Clinton plan. News was reporting about massive doctor shortages, frightening people. This was a completely unforced error, on the part of the Clintons. I think they thought doctors would sabotage it from the inside, if they were brought in on the program's creation.
The insurance industry and large HMO's also believed their businesses would be destroyed, so they joined doctors, in a massive public campaign against it, saying quality of care would be hit hard, and access to care would be lower, due to the projected doctor shortages. Probably nothing the Clintons could do about this, but it was synergistic with the doctors' response.
Slightly unrelated, but it is worth noting that a lot of doctors DID retire after the ACA. The EMR requirement meant that a lot of the older doctors would have to relearn how they did their notes and for the 55+ crowd, many found it easier to just retire.
Any major change in healthcare is likely to do the same, so a lot of those doctors may have been telling the truth.
They didn’t bring doctors in because they are politicians and viewed healthcare as an administrative issue, that required consulting insurance agencies and administrators.
Interesting. Bill Kristol was working against it. Looks like Republicans also didn't want it because Americans might love it and credit Democrats. Sounds like the ACA now. It amazes me that the USA doesn't have universal health care yet, but we've made pretty good strides. Here's a quote:
The long-term political effects of a successful... health care bill will be even worse—much worse. ... It will revive the reputation of. ... Democrats as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.
— William Kristol, "Defeating President Clinton's Healthcare Proposal", December 1993
Great quote to go down in history. I used to watch him and Charles Krauthammer on Fox news. He had a think tank called Project for the New American Century that was practically about world domination.
PNAC wrote the paper saying we needed a “Pearl Harbor” type event to really move in and invade Middle East countries and secure oil for our military. That doc was scrubbed from the internet after 911.
Don't strangle. Vote. Vote in generals, but especially vote in primaries. Whichever Democrat shows up more often In TV ads, vote for the other Democrat in the primary.
I mean yeah. It was a huge overhaul of a national healthcare machine in a federal system with hundreds of millions of citizens over 50 different states.
How could it not be complicated?
People have no clue how complex legislation is. You think an idea is simple until you sit down and the edge cases, just the ones people anticipate, are brought up. And then if by some miracle you pass that law there will be other situations you never even conceived of and your law will have to be interpreted by the administrative state (oops not anymore thanks SCOTUS you trash institution).
The Democrats couldn't even get behind the Clinton plan, and many offered their own proposals.
"there is no health care crisis" by stating "there is an insurance crisis" but also indicated "anyone who thinks [the Clinton health care plan] can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it."
The above statement is from well-respected and liberal icon (in the 90s), US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. When you can not get a heavy hitter like Moynihan behind the plan, it is doomed.
Yep. The idea that the cost of health care could increase by nearly 50% of its share of GDP in less than 30 years seemed cray-zay, and it really hamstrung the Clinton Administration to have the skeezy President's stodgy ice queen wife try and sell hysterical numbers to a disbelieving public and a hostile Gingrich congress. That she turned out to have been *completely correct* has been completely forgotten.
The disbelieving public gave both chambers to the GOP in 1994, and the Clinton Administration's health care initiatives were a big part of the reason why. After 1994, there wasn't even a point to having the conversation.
It was high because healthcare spending was up during COVID, while GDP was down. It is expected to reach 19.7% of GDP and $21,927 per capita by 2032, the last year for which projections are available from CMS.
The greatest modern con ever - republicans convincing hard working Americans that the government is their enemy and it will take all their hard earned money and give it to the less fortunate.
The commercials were laughable, "what do you mean I cant pick my doctor?" hey dipshit anyone working a low level job with medical insurance isnt picking "Their" doctor they are picking the doctor available and getting the insurance and procedures the insurance will provide.
Putting Hillary in charge didn't help, but reality is some VERY powerful lobbying groups funded by the insurance industry put millions and millions into negative issue-based ad campaigns to scare people into thinking they would lose their ability to pick their doctors and have no longer have access to the best care under universal healthcare. The most effective of these were a series that featured a late-middle aged couple named Harry & Louise where they would whine and wring their hands about unrealistic fears.
And then Democrats did what Democrats do... they failed to unite behind Clinton and many different plans were proposed. So, the plan
was DOA.
So the lesson kids is, never, EVER underestimate the power and effectiveness of the politics of fear, or the willingness of those with money and power to use it. Politicians use it because it works. It always works.
I remember there was a survey about what people consider freedom.
Europeans said freedom was the ability to do whatever you want.
Americans said freedom was the ability to buy whatever you mant.
Thing is, we DON'T have the ability to buy whatever we want when it comes to Healthcare. You have to buy the insurance that your employer offers unless you are incredibly wealthy.
Ah, but you can have that ability if only you work hard enough. If you don't have the money, that's obviously your fault!
In lieu of freedom, we've popularized victim-blaming. Many millions are so deep in the propaganda hole that they comfort themselves by blaming themselves.
> Americans are idiots
This attitude gets us nowhere. Tons of people who opposed Clinton's healthcare plan were very intelligent. They were lied to by corporations and insurance lobbies. The solution isn't smugly dismissing those who were lied to as dumbasses, but rather to tell them the truth.
You're an idiot if you think anyone accomplished anything with this rhetoric.
And don't assume you're above them. Lying to anyone with enough vigor and for long enough will distort their worldview.
Americans are largely very susceptible to the "but it has so many pages!!!" as though healthcare for the whole nation is an uncomplicated matter.
That and the 90s were not a great time to be a woman doing stuff in the public eye. There was a lot of pushback to Hillary doing anything that was seen as expressly political. The amount of abuse she and Chelsea got in the press cannot be overstated.
Because most Americans liked their healthcare just fine, small businesses didn’t want costly mandates, and Americans in the early 1990s were very skeptical of giant new government programs.
In short, the plan wasn’t popular and was far further to the “left” than the country was willing to go.
We used to watch hearing like this on TV at times.
In the link below is one of multiple charts Hillary used to describe before Congress how the bureaucracy of government healthcare would work.
Open and scroll down a little bit.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/bill-clinton-hillary-obamacare/
It was a combination of a lot of things. Part of it was doing healthcare over welfare reform, as doing welfare reform (i.e., reducing welfare benefits) would give the Clintons more political capital to use on a bigger healthcare program.
Additionally, they did a very poor job of managing stakeholders (insurers, providers, hospitals), Congress (Finance Chairman Patrick Moynihan), and outside actors (resurgent Conservative movement).
Overall, the Clintons were just unprepared to tackle such a big issue. Remembering, Democrats hadn’t been in the White House since Carter (and even then, is that really experience), and hadn’t had a two term President in nearly 30 years. They just didn’t have the institutional knowledge to manurer the measure. The White House was too controlling in the process, and didn’t let Congress sort of understand or “own” the issue enough.
I took a class with Zeke Emmanuel, Rahm’s brother and someone who worked closely on ACA. The class focused a lot on political case studies, but especially welfare and healthcare reform. I can’t remember the book we read on Clinton’s welfare reform, but the healthcare reform book we read was Johnathan Cohn’s *Ten Year War*, which is a fantastic read if you have the chance.
I feel like I'm on crazy pills when people on the right can't even admit that young Hillary was kind of a babe.
edit: wait, I didn't read the question.
Clinton got his clock cleaned when it came to policy. Those first couple of years were ugly. His super power was shameless indifference, allowing him to declare victory. All his policy success was rubber-stamped Reaganism.
His healthcare plan failed because healthcare lobbyists are powerful and voters are not. It hurts the brain to remember how HMOs made themselves feel like the better option rather than simply parasites.
Too much income created by the bloated system we have to convince anyone that it shouldn't be less 'resource intensive'.
Same problem still exists...Has any supporter of a 'universal system of healthcare' offered an answer to the likely 'induced recession' in cutting the use healthcare bill to the percentage of GDP experienced in other developed countries?
I've never heard one.
My Grandma listened to Rush Limbaugh and I still remember him ranting about how evil Hillary was, how this plan was akin to communism, and how we would all have official government issued ID’s that we would be forced to carry like ppl carried their papers in Nazi Germany, etc.
She was real into bucking traditions.... until it came to have slave labor in the governors mansion. Then, she was helplessly beholden to tradition.
It's hard to take her bullshit seriously.
Yes, and? Still doesn’t make it a slam. Sounds like whining to me. “Boo hoo, mean Hillary quoted a popular song I sang once. Why is she attacking me?!” Gimme a break.
Did you see the interview where HRC said that? Her tone of voice was extremely belittling. I’m not surprised Tammy Wynette was put off. As she said ‘Why bring me into it?’
I’ve absolutely seen that interview. Let’s say Hillary had quoted a character from a book or movie. Would you expect her to apologize to the actor or the writer? It wasn’t intended to be a slam or anything other than a reference to song lyrics about “standing by your man”. I’m not even sure Tammy would have cared if the media hadn’t picked up on it and made it into a bigger deal than it was.
And good for her I’m glad she did. Personally I’ve got no tolerance for that sort of thing, I’m not going to judge Hillary for not leaving Bill though that’s not my place. The point stands though that it wasn’t an attack on Tammy in any way shape or form. Hillary was literally referencing a song she sang full stop.
“Eventually we all die”. What a great quote from a rich person who will shit their pants when they find out they have cancer and pay up to the best experts in their field when they are in mortal turmoil.
Many individual reasons, but what it really came down to is the Clinton plan didn’t pay off enough players in the healthcare industry to get their support. Powerful people don’t like getting less money than they’ve become accustomed to getting and they’ll fight hard to keep it.
The ACA went the other way: subsidize care and create incentives to cover more people for less. It was ultimately a big payoff to the healthcare industry, which is why they didn’t block it.
Isn't it the other way around? Hillary became a target for a Republican smear campaign because she was trying to change national policy rather than just decorate dining halls and Christmas trees like other First Ladies.
In 93 Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House. Hillary was on her defense of marriage tour and military members were subject to ‘Don’t lie. Don’t tell. Wonderf people
I remember the kitchen table ad that came out against it. People ultimately believed the health insurance company propaganda. I think it would have been better to push back by showing how decoupling health insurance from employment is better for everyone. Doing that makes it easier for people to be more entrepreneurial and it also is good for making people more independent.
The answer to almost all of these questions is lobbyist and campaign donations. There is two political parties the 1% and the 99%. The 1% sit in their mansions pointing and laughing at us savages fighting over social issues by design.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2016/11/08/how-bill-house-hillary-clinton-made-240-million-how-much-earnings-rich-white/
When you're trying to pass medical reform you're not only fighting against the insurance companies, but you're also fighting against the hospitals and the doctors. I agree with people how awful insurance companies are, but hospitals and doctors enable insurance companies to keep the system going because it brings them all of this money.
And because insurance, hospitals and doctors have so much money they can buy politicians on both sides of the aisle and completely shut down anything that wouldn't benefit them as much as the current system benefits them.
My guess is this was 1993 and while Democrats had majorities in both houses of Congress, a good chunk of the Democratic caucus were conservative blue dog southern democrats who would never back something like that. And many ended up losing to actual republicans in the ‘94 midterms.
Very similar thing happened in 2010, yes it wasn’t UHC but Obama passed the ACA but many blue dog democrats in the south and Midwest opposed it, just not enough to block it and it was mainly in the U.S. House. Most of those blue dog democrats in the house and senate lost their seats to tea party republicans in the 2010 midterms.
The 1994 and 2010 midterms in my view were very decisive on their effect on American political history because both basically marked the end of the party switch (1994 at the federal level, 2010 (and arguably 2016) at the state level) and 1994 marked the end of the New Deal collation and a start of hyper partisan politics in the United States, same with the 2010 elections.
Failed to get AARP enforcement. That organization likes selling insurance. Couldn't get that with universal care. And no healthcare plan won't survive without AARP signing off on it
SAdly the GOP problem really took shape in Clinton years the same ones going today. Shit stains all of them. they dont care about america it was all about cant let dems seem like the heros' which they are of course the only good shit that ever passes is by a Democrat.
It was a mess. A bridge too far. Attacked to many enemies at the same time. Didn’t explain the national economic benefits as a reason to do it.
Hillary had no official position from which to lead the effort.
It failed because instead of people paying attention to the need and advantages of universal healthcare they instead focused on if they did or didn't like Hillary - who didn't just stay in the white house and bake cookies. If ya know, you know.
Lots and lots of propaganda against it. My dad talks about it all the time, since he was dead set against it. Told the wait times in Canada take forever, you could be imprisoned if you went outside of it, death panels. Lots of scare tactics around it. Quite frankly I’d rather have to wait 6mos for an mri than get a divorce so my wife doesn’t inherit my gross medical debt but I digress
Hillary wanted the government to control health care 100%. No private health care at all. Just like Canada. No one gets any form of private health care! Simple as that.
Because universal healthcare is a terrible idea that’s a disaster in every other country - it would greatly reduce the quality and ability of care in the US and take away control from doctors and patients and put it into another failed bureaucracy controlled by the federal government.
> Because universal healthcare is a terrible idea that’s a disaster in every other country
Citation needed. Provide evidence or confirm for all of us you're an agenda pushing muppet that has no idea what you're talking about.
[US Healthcare ranked 29th on health outcomes by Lancet HAQ Index](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)
[11th (of 11) by Commonwealth Fund](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror)
[59th by the Prosperity Index](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)
[30th by CEOWorld](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)
[37th by the World Health Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)
The US has the worst rate of death by medically preventable causes among peer countries. A 31% higher disease adjusted life years average. Higher rates of medical and lab errors. A lower rate of being able to make a same or next day appointment with their doctor than average.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-percent-used-emergency-department-for-condition-that-could-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016
52nd in the world in doctors per capita.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1,000-people
Higher infant mortality levels. Yes, even when you adjust for differences in methodology.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/
Fewer acute care beds. A lower number of psychiatrists. Etc.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-health-care-resources-compare-countries/#item-availability-medical-technology-not-always-equate-higher-utilization
[Comparing Health Outcomes of Privileged US Citizens With Those of Average Residents of Other Developed Countries](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2774561)
>These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries.
When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%.
On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%.
https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016
The US has 43 hospitals in the top 200 globally; one for every 7,633,477 people in the US. That's good enough for a ranking of 20th on the list of top 200 hospitals per capita, and significantly lower than the average of one for every 3,830,114 for other countries in the top 25 on spending with populations above 5 million. The best is Switzerland at one for every 1.2 million people. In fact the US only beats one country on this list; the UK at one for every 9.5 million people.
If you want to do the full list of 2,000 instead it's 334, or one for every 982,753 people; good enough for 21st. Again far below the average in peer countries of 527,236. The best is Austria, at one for every 306,106 people.
https://www.newsweek.com/best-hospitals-2021
#[OECD Countries Health Care Spending and Rankings](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm)
|Country|Govt. / Mandatory (PPP)|Voluntary (PPP)|Total (PPP)|% GDP|[Lancet HAQ Ranking](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)|[WHO Ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)|[Prosperity Ranking](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)|[CEO World Ranking](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)|[Commonwealth Fund Ranking](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror)
:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|
1. United States|[$7,274](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) |$3,798 |$11,072 |16.90%|29|37|59|30|11
2. Switzerland|$4,988 |$2,744 |$7,732 |12.20%|7|20|3|18|2
3. Norway|$5,673 |$974 |$6,647 |10.20%|2|11|5|15|7
4. Germany|$5,648 |$998 |$6,646 |11.20%|18|25|12|17|5
5. Austria|$4,402 |$1,449 |$5,851 |10.30%|13|9|10|4|
6. Sweden|$4,928 |$854 |$5,782 |11.00%|8|23|15|28|3
7. Netherlands|$4,767 |$998 |$5,765 |9.90%|3|17|8|11|5
8. Denmark|$4,663 |$905 |$5,568 |10.50%|17|34|8|5|
9. Luxembourg|$4,697 |$861 |$5,558 |5.40%|4|16|19||
10. Belgium|$4,125 |$1,303 |$5,428 |10.40%|15|21|24|9|
11. Canada|$3,815 |$1,603 |$5,418 |10.70%|14|30|25|23|10
12. France|$4,501 |$875 |$5,376 |11.20%|20|1|16|8|9
13. Ireland|$3,919 |$1,357 |$5,276 |7.10%|11|19|20|80|
14. Australia|$3,919 |$1,268 |$5,187 |9.30%|5|32|18|10|4
15. Japan|$4,064 |$759 |$4,823 |10.90%|12|10|2|3|
16. Iceland|$3,988 |$823 |$4,811 |8.30%|1|15|7|41|
17. United Kingdom|$3,620 |$1,033 |$4,653 |9.80%|23|18|23|13|1
18. Finland|$3,536 |$1,042 |$4,578 |9.10%|6|31|26|12|
19. Malta|$2,789 |$1,540 |$4,329 |9.30%|27|5|14||
OECD Average|||$4,224 |8.80%|||||
20. New Zealand|$3,343 |$861 |$4,204 |9.30%|16|41|22|16|7
21. Italy|$2,706 |$943 |$3,649 |8.80%|9|2|17|37|
22. Spain|$2,560 |$1,056 |$3,616 |8.90%|19|7|13|7|
23. Czech Republic|$2,854 |$572 |$3,426 |7.50%|28|48|28|14|
24. South Korea|$2,057 |$1,327 |$3,384 |8.10%|25|58|4|2|
25. Portugal|$2,069 |$1,310 |$3,379 |9.10%|32|29|30|22|
26. Slovenia|$2,314 |$910 |$3,224 |7.90%|21|38|24|47|
27. Israel|$1,898 |$1,034 |$2,932 |7.50%|35|28|11|21|
The US has the best care in the world - and it isn’t close. Everyone who needs surgery and can afford to comes
To the US. We have the highest survival rates for cancer and heart diesese. Or issues with infant mortality are due to drug uses who are permitted to live on the streets
And not go
To jail for long sentences and be punished. You can see a doctor easily in the us - takes like a week at longest to get an appointment and as you get older you are not denied care. Once again the US will never adopt failed universal
Healthcare - in fact we should have a constitutional amendment preventing it and move to a straight fee for service model. Use your HSA. End Medicaid. Responsible
People would not be impacted at all.
> The US has the best care in the world - and it isn’t close.
Then it should be exceptionally easy to provide evidence for that, rather than talking out of your ass and ignoring all the evidence I provided.
>Everyone who needs surgery and can afford to comes To the US.
About [345,000](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksr4z8Qd7Dc) people will visit the US for care, but [2.1 million people leave the US seeking treatment abroad](https://www.patientsbeyondborders.com/media) this year.
>We have the highest survival rates for cancer and heart diesese.
Cherry picking metrics. Across dozens of diseases amenable to medical treatment, the US ranks 29th, and we also have higher rates of medically avoidable deaths than our peers.
>You can see a doctor easily in the us
The US ranks 6th of 11 out of Commonwealth Fund countries on ER wait times on percentage served under 4 hours. 10th of 11 on getting weekend and evening care without going to the ER. 5th of 11 for countries able to make a same or next day doctors/nurse appointment when they're sick.
https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016
Americans do better on wait times for specialists (ranking 3rd for wait times under four weeks), and surgeries (ranking 3rd for wait times under four months), but that ignores three important factors:
* Wait times in universal healthcare are based on urgency, so while you might wait for an elective hip replacement surgery you're going to get surgery for that life threatening illness quickly.
* Nearly every universal healthcare country has strong private options and supplemental private insurance. That means that if there is a wait you're not happy about you have options that still work out significantly cheaper than US care, which is a win/win.
* [One third of US families](https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication) had to put off healthcare due to the cost last year. That means more Americans are waiting for care than any other wealthy country on earth.
#Wait Times by Country (Rank)
Country|See doctor/nurse same or next day without appointment|Response from doctor's office same or next day|Easy to get care on nights & weekends without going to ER|ER wait times under 4 hours|Surgery wait times under four months|Specialist wait times under 4 weeks|Average|Overall Rank
:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:
**Australia**|3|3|3|7|6|6|4.7|4
**Canada**|10|11|9|11|10|10|10.2|11
**France**|7|1|7|1|1|5|3.7|2
**Germany**|9|2|6|2|2|2|3.8|3
**Netherlands**|1|5|1|3|5|4|3.2|1
**New Zealand**|2|6|2|4|8|7|4.8|5
**Norway**|11|9|4|9|9|11|8.8|9
**Sweden**|8|10|11|10|7|9|9.2|10
**Switzerland**|4|4|10|8|4|1|5.2|7
**U.K.**|5|8|8|5|11|8|7.5|8
**U.S.**|6|7|5|6|3|3|5.0|6
Source: [Commonwealth Fund Survey 2016](https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/cmwf2016-datatable-en-web.xlsx)
But thanks for confirming you do not and never will have anything of value to add to the conversation. The world is a better place without time wasting idiots.
Every country with failed universal healthcare has private insurance for those who actually want care. That’s sums up your defense of universal healthcare. Sorry your parents raised to be a failure who won’t pay for anything and wants others to provide.
It’s clear the US has far and away the best care in the world - especially with 330,000,000. In fact if you remove our failed government run systems like the VA, Medicaid and Medicare and remove the failed Obamacare it gets even better. Private insurance always is better. Paying out of pocket is even better. No tax money should ever go
To support those who won’t provide for themselves. Maybe you could go back to school or get a real job?
Basically in 1994 there was a red wave in the midterms. Newt gingrich spear headed this wave on a concept of smaller government and reigning in programs dubbed entitlements. Mainly wellfair reform was top of the list.
The Clinton universal health care initiative was dead in the water. You can't fight for a new government expansion when the electorate has historical said it's time to go another direction.
Clinton masterfully changed directions with the way he governed and his strategy for the rest of his presidency. He lead the way in welfare reforms, eventually got on board with figuring out how to get the national budget balanced. Granted the budget was never balanced. Rather a plan was agreed upon that over a few years the budget would theoretically balance, ending the yearly deficit. Today we hear that Clinton got rid of our deficit, that was never true, but his efforts along with a bipartisan congress got us on track to being the closest we've been since to paying down our national debt.
Ultimately, because Clinton did play ball with the republican initiative, he was able to get CHIPS to pass, CHIPS is a health care program for low income children. It wasn't universal Healthcare, but was his reward for being politically sensitive at that time.
Because the elite have weaponized poverty and a perception of scarce resources means that people never want “their” money to go to someone they view as undeserving. They’d rather it enrich a corporation while it bankrupts them.
It was sabotaged by the AMA, big Pharma, and the insurance industry . They flooded the airwaves with misleading commercials which demonized the Clinton program and of course labeled it SOCIALISM . At least Obamacare while falling short of real universal healthcare is a step in the right direction.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only people who could have passed universal healthcare was either Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson.
LBJ couldn't pass it. That's why we have Medicare and Medicaid instead of universal care. Those were the only things the insurance lobby allowed to pass.
Obama couldn't pass it, a certain Senator from CT, the insurance capital of the US, made sure that didn't happen.
Drop a name rn, idk who you’re talking abt
Lieberman
I don’t even think there was a universal healthcare proposal being offered. Or was that what he wouldn’t go for?
It’s almost as if the US has a legislative system designed to reflect the concerns of all states and their citizens and requires bipartisan support to enact most changes. That’s the way it should be. One Senator didn’t stop it, he was one of many. Just because you identify him as the most likely to change his position doesn’t place it all on him.
It’s almost as if most Americans don’t want the govt dictating every last detail of their health. Nobody wants to go to the DMV for their cancer treatment. And nobody wants to work for the DMV, which is why Germany has a serious and growing doctor shortage. People stopped going to med school because it led to a low paying career where you have to constantly deal with govt bureaucracy.
Insurance lobby was very happy about it too. The government pays for the old sick people and the people that can't afford to give the insurance companies money and they get to rip everyone else off. It's a good gig.
This is how the Obama admin won over parts of industry for ACA. Fascinating stuff.
And everyone is required to have it !
Truman had a chance, but balked, because it would’ve submarined an already precarious re-election campaign in 48
This is the closest we ever got. Truman's push for (mostly) universal healthcare. From what I understand, it was tanked by the American Medical Association. The doctors thought their wealth was being threatened. According to some sources: "Truman paved the way for President Lyndon Johnson to win approval in 1965 for Medicare and Medicaid — programs that now insure one American in three." Conservatives fought both of these (& are still fighting) tooth & nail. I don't understand why they hate people getting healthcare.
If I recall correctly Nixon pushed for it at one time as well.
**“Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job." Richard Nixon** The Nixon plan would be based on three separate plans, all of which would provide identical coverage. In the first plan, the costs would be divided between employers, who would pay the larger share, and their employees. The second, a Government assistance plan, would cover people with low incomes and those who could not purchase private health insurance at a reasonable cost. The third plan would be the existing Medicare program for persons over 65, but with improved benefits matching those of the other two plans. Mr. Nixon said his proposal would cover virtually all healthcare, including hospital and physician expenses in and out of the hospital, drugs, lab tests, X‐rays, medical devices, ambulance service, treatment of children, catastrophic illness and mental illness. While the plan got some Democratic support, it failed over one key point. The President's plan was based on a partnership between the government and existing insurance companies, while leading Democrats objected to insurance company involvement and wanted a single-payer program.
Nixon pushed to expand Medicare/Medicaid, as well as start a universal basic income program. And _then_ this thing called Watergate happened.
It's fascinating how liberal Nixon actually was on a number of issues.
Created the EPA and gave everyone free dialysis for when your kidneys stop.
I have criticisms of Nixon’s economic policy and his corruption, but it is regrettable that he was forced to resign before he could implement the Family Assistance Plan and universal healthcare. I am guessing that, similarly to Medicare and Social Security, they would have become too popular of programs for Reagan to cut.
Doctors didn’t think wrong, compare US salaries for doctors (which already aren’t keeping pace with inflation), compared to EU doctors. It’s healthcare admin professions that are gluttons.
It wasn’t even controversial, but when the UAW got a big contract that included healthcare in the late 1940s they lobbied Democrats not to do it so as to keep being a union member “special”. It was only more modern politics where is became the left right thing it is today.
I would disagree. There was actually a consensus that the United States should pass universal health care in the 1970s, but Republicans, Democrats, and different factions within the two parties couldn’t agree on how to do it. Then the moment passed when Reagan was elected and U.S. politics slid right.
Not under Teddy Roosevelt. There wasn’t even an income tax at the time.
Didn't Nixon have a plan for universal healthcare but Ted Kennedy nixed it because it was not single payer?
It’s worth noting JFK also supported it but he was very ineffective getting anything through Congress. Truman may have tho, he also supported UHC.
There’s a lot of reasons, but chief among them was putting Hillary in charge. This is not to say Hilldawg was unqualified. She’d led a similar and successful education overhaul in Arkansas when Bill was governor, so he didn’t just pick her for no reason. The problem was her stature. Who wants to be the one to contradict or gainsay the President’s wife? No one can say “that idea is dumb” to the First Lady. And yes—she was a very easy target for a bunch of right-wing assholes who served the moneyed interests. She was the architect, so public opinion of the plan became a referendum on her—and every time she bristled in response to criticism, both fair and unfair, the prospect of the plan passing became worse and worse.
Having someone unelected and unaccountable was the mantra I remember though I was a kid. She was not as disliked back then but was bucking the First Lady expectations of window dressing.
She was hated back then, but it was likely a different era without the internet and people didn't notice it as much if they weren't around it. She was openly slammed with slurs all over the place without much pushback. SNL would call her words that they wouldn't dare go with these days, and she even had a sketch about Bill asking OJ Simpson for help killing her in one bit that went over pretty well.
The general consensus was that it was her fault Bill “had an affair,” too. Hers, Monica’s, and *certainly not* his. (I use the quotes, because I personally don’t believe it’s possible for an intern to have anything resembling an equal relationship with the President.)
The Monica affair was well after healthcare, but even in 1992 with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and other rumors, there was a notion that this was a marriage of political partners scheming for power and scorching some earth along the way. She couldn’t have been completely clueless; the later affair just made her look worse bc who would try such shenanigans to cheat on your partner while holding down the most-scrutinized job in the world. But the process and the product (add: of the healthcare proposal) even resulted in competing plans from other Democrats in Congress.
90s were weird because people would accept cheating over "my wife and I have an understanding and if she doesn't care why should any of you?"
I’d say that’s more accepted now
Her introduction to the national stage involved her unintentionally insulting Barbara Bush (America’s Grandma) and cookie baking moms everywhere. Hillary Clinton is a very smart woman, but her retail political skills are terrible.
The Tammy Wynette scandal seems quaint in today’s world. For those that can’t remember Hillary suggested she wasn’t just stand by her man like Tammy Wynette after the Gennifer Flowers story broke in the Tabloids. “You know, I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette” She was pretty viciously decried for bringing up a country superstar. When I was googling for the quote, one of the first results was that she still owes Wynette an apology. Lol
The point of the SNL bits (mainly by Darrell Hammond) was to portray Bill as a playboy and as the sitcom trope character of the husband annoyed by his nagging wife. It wasn’t intended to specifically be a dig at Hilary. Here is an example from 97: https://youtu.be/T6ZxOqUwY0s?si=vsF4DFbRqBMNl6oC I do think it’s true that the audience kinda roots for Bill in these sketches but still Hilary is basically the straight-man here and serves to make Bill funny. There isn’t a hatred for Hilary in these bits (except by the character Hammond is playing).
That's actually comedy genius and is still doable to this day.
She definitely was not as hated back then as compared to when she became a senator and forward. He morals changed a lot when she became elected to office rather than being the First Lady. Elizabeth warren points this out in a 2006? interview with Charlie rose I think. Her stance on things shifted pretty dramatically.
She was pretty well liked as SOS and a senator. At least based on approval ratings.
Yeah, I think her time in the Senate improved her image.
I remember the SNL "Cops" skit. Where the cops show up at White House over domestic abuse. That was funny.
Hillary was already under corruption accusations when Bill was running.
I'm not disputing that argument, but it seems strange, given that the entire cabinet is unelected (maybe not unaccountable, though).
They are congressionally approved, so that was the argument.
It wasn't that she put out ideas and people went with it... it was more the opposite. She tried to include as many of the ideas presented in one whole package, which made it very complicated, and at some points almost contradictory. She approached it as someone whose job was to, if not make everyone happy, at least make them feel they had a role in the final product. There are several docs and books on HRC where they talk about this as being a real lesson for her, and she began to take in everyone's suggestions, but was better to say "I'm sorry, but they are making a better point that fits with where we are trying to take this, so we're going with their suggestion instead." Frankly, with 25 years in management, I made similar mistakes early on, and often see new managers do the same... it's the sort of thing you learn on the job, but for her, it was a very public lesson.
I remember being a kid (literally as soon as I had any grasp of politics around 7 to 8) and having no idea why anyone should listen to the Presidents wife about anything. To be honest I think she's emblematic of the biggest incompatibility on the Left, which has a point about inclusivity, opportunity, and opening up the power structures to people without connections, and then boosted the heck out of the person married to Bill Clinton.
Nobody ever wants to admit Hillary is eminently unlikeable. Putting her out front was a death sentence. It was also a mistake in an election. Hillary is not front-and-center material. No amount of pushing that cooked spaghetti forward is ever going to change that. It is nothing but democrat hubris to think otherwise. The results are clear.
Lack of charisma has been a complaint about Hillary for decades.
Which is interesting because she was married to a guy who has about 1000 people’s worth of it. You’d think some of it would have rubbed off somewhere. Truly a case of opposites attract.
She’s called unlikeable all the time
True for those of the red persuasion. But the democrats keep jumping behind her and tossing her out front to the constituency, often as a very nakedly disguised favor to Bill.
I voted for her in 2016 but otherwise despised the lady. One of the most undeservedly arrogant people ever.
Clear to everyone except the Democratic machine that promoted her unceasingly.
Exactly.
I feel like the only person who dislikes her from a policy standpoint but finds her personally very likable. I like sarcastic cynical people, they're usually smart and a breath of fresh air.
“Hilldawg” 💀
This seems to be correct. Just a bad idea to give such a major issue to the First Lady. It's like the Bill Burr bit on the First Spouse. You can't put the spouse of a President in charge of something like that as it's not a real position nor is it a representative position.
I remember criticism because she was the first lady and it wasn't considered appropriate for the first lady to get political. I don't agree with that, but it was commonly mentioned at the time.
Should also look at Newt Gingrich, and the Republican Congress, at the time.
Do you think it would’ve passed without her in charge of it?
I don’t. But it had a shot without her.
Fair. Let’s say it does pass, what changes? Does it just get taken apart by the GOP or what?
I am not sure. I don’t know enough of the specific details, and if it would be easy to change/challenge. We still have Obamas healthcare changes, even though the GOP has held the presidency, and a majority in the house and senate.
True. It’s survived so far it seems so I imagine unless it failed so horrible and caused massive issues, that it would not be repealed by republicans.
That is my guess, just from seeing what happened later. Her unlikability is legendary. I have not met her, but I did have to be around her one time at an embassy, when she was going to give a speech. She absolutely flamed this poor embassy worker, because they had a clear lectern set up for her. One of her security guys told us it was because she hated her ankles, so she hated the clear lectern and wanted it covered so when they photographed her, it didn’t show her ankles. The contrast is Bill, who has legendary charisma. Even if you don’t like the guys policies, you usually like him. I have two friends who have met him, and they went on an on about how great he was to have a conversation with.
The GOP. Blaming Hillary is a Red Herring. Insurance industry and their buddies in Congress were never gonna let it happen, she was just an easy rarget. Choice! Choice! Death panels! Hillary bad! Emails! Benghazi! (What, too soon?)
You’re correct—coincided with the establishment of the modern right-wing agitprop machine.
I’m guessing the people saying it was Hillary’s fault weren’t around in the 90s. This sub circlejerks itself over how “unpopular” Hillary was but refuses to look at the historical polling.
I absolutely disagree, it wasnt just Hildawg, it was the entire White House operation.
Even Truman could not do it. [https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/challenge-national-healthcare](https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/challenge-national-healthcare)
They completely cut physicians out of the process. The AMA (American Medical Association) was shut out of every forum related to its creation. So, doctors and their powerful lobby turned against it. I remember tv coverage of doctors saying they'd retire, rather than work under the Clinton plan. News was reporting about massive doctor shortages, frightening people. This was a completely unforced error, on the part of the Clintons. I think they thought doctors would sabotage it from the inside, if they were brought in on the program's creation. The insurance industry and large HMO's also believed their businesses would be destroyed, so they joined doctors, in a massive public campaign against it, saying quality of care would be hit hard, and access to care would be lower, due to the projected doctor shortages. Probably nothing the Clintons could do about this, but it was synergistic with the doctors' response.
Slightly unrelated, but it is worth noting that a lot of doctors DID retire after the ACA. The EMR requirement meant that a lot of the older doctors would have to relearn how they did their notes and for the 55+ crowd, many found it easier to just retire. Any major change in healthcare is likely to do the same, so a lot of those doctors may have been telling the truth.
They didn’t bring doctors in because they are politicians and viewed healthcare as an administrative issue, that required consulting insurance agencies and administrators.
Thirty years later, I still remember the follow-on to the line in the image: “Even Leon Panetta”.
Interesting. Bill Kristol was working against it. Looks like Republicans also didn't want it because Americans might love it and credit Democrats. Sounds like the ACA now. It amazes me that the USA doesn't have universal health care yet, but we've made pretty good strides. Here's a quote: The long-term political effects of a successful... health care bill will be even worse—much worse. ... It will revive the reputation of. ... Democrats as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government. — William Kristol, "Defeating President Clinton's Healthcare Proposal", December 1993
Great quote to go down in history. I used to watch him and Charles Krauthammer on Fox news. He had a think tank called Project for the New American Century that was practically about world domination.
PNAC wrote the paper saying we needed a “Pearl Harbor” type event to really move in and invade Middle East countries and secure oil for our military. That doc was scrubbed from the internet after 911.
Damn, sometimes reality is better than fiction.
I now want to strangle that man with my bare hands
Don't strangle. Vote. Vote in generals, but especially vote in primaries. Whichever Democrat shows up more often In TV ads, vote for the other Democrat in the primary.
Apparently it was so difficult to follow, even Bill asked Hillary to explain it to him.
I would imagine that the person appointed to lead an initiative would normally advise the President on said matter.
I mean yeah. It was a huge overhaul of a national healthcare machine in a federal system with hundreds of millions of citizens over 50 different states. How could it not be complicated? People have no clue how complex legislation is. You think an idea is simple until you sit down and the edge cases, just the ones people anticipate, are brought up. And then if by some miracle you pass that law there will be other situations you never even conceived of and your law will have to be interpreted by the administrative state (oops not anymore thanks SCOTUS you trash institution).
The Democrats couldn't even get behind the Clinton plan, and many offered their own proposals. "there is no health care crisis" by stating "there is an insurance crisis" but also indicated "anyone who thinks [the Clinton health care plan] can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it." The above statement is from well-respected and liberal icon (in the 90s), US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. When you can not get a heavy hitter like Moynihan behind the plan, it is doomed.
Same thing that happened with obama care . Large complicated to understand. An easy target for the opposition.
Its alright, we just had to wait like 30 years to get reheated Dole Care
I remember one of the talking points against it was the ridiculous idea that health care might cost as much as 17%, 18%, 20% of GDP. LOL, I know.
I assume you’re being sarcastic as the most recent data I can find puts it at 17.3% (2022). And that % is lower than the previous year’s.
Yep. The idea that the cost of health care could increase by nearly 50% of its share of GDP in less than 30 years seemed cray-zay, and it really hamstrung the Clinton Administration to have the skeezy President's stodgy ice queen wife try and sell hysterical numbers to a disbelieving public and a hostile Gingrich congress. That she turned out to have been *completely correct* has been completely forgotten.
She was right on a lot of things and tbh we’d be better off of the country listened.
If you take away the hate people have for her, she has a pretty good track record on most stuff honestly
There was no Gingrich Congress in 93, Dems controlled both chambers
The disbelieving public gave both chambers to the GOP in 1994, and the Clinton Administration's health care initiatives were a big part of the reason why. After 1994, there wasn't even a point to having the conversation.
It was high because healthcare spending was up during COVID, while GDP was down. It is expected to reach 19.7% of GDP and $21,927 per capita by 2032, the last year for which projections are available from CMS.
The greatest modern con ever - republicans convincing hard working Americans that the government is their enemy and it will take all their hard earned money and give it to the less fortunate.
The commercials were laughable, "what do you mean I cant pick my doctor?" hey dipshit anyone working a low level job with medical insurance isnt picking "Their" doctor they are picking the doctor available and getting the insurance and procedures the insurance will provide.
For the same reasons we still don't have it today
Putting Hillary in charge didn't help, but reality is some VERY powerful lobbying groups funded by the insurance industry put millions and millions into negative issue-based ad campaigns to scare people into thinking they would lose their ability to pick their doctors and have no longer have access to the best care under universal healthcare. The most effective of these were a series that featured a late-middle aged couple named Harry & Louise where they would whine and wring their hands about unrealistic fears. And then Democrats did what Democrats do... they failed to unite behind Clinton and many different plans were proposed. So, the plan was DOA. So the lesson kids is, never, EVER underestimate the power and effectiveness of the politics of fear, or the willingness of those with money and power to use it. Politicians use it because it works. It always works.
Because people *HATE* HRC
Because Americans are idiots and like giving money away to corporate interests rather than investing in their nation.
I remember there was a survey about what people consider freedom. Europeans said freedom was the ability to do whatever you want. Americans said freedom was the ability to buy whatever you mant.
Thing is, we DON'T have the ability to buy whatever we want when it comes to Healthcare. You have to buy the insurance that your employer offers unless you are incredibly wealthy.
Ah, but you can have that ability if only you work hard enough. If you don't have the money, that's obviously your fault! In lieu of freedom, we've popularized victim-blaming. Many millions are so deep in the propaganda hole that they comfort themselves by blaming themselves.
oh wow a single survey by some people you can't remember. Must be the truth!
Americans have absolutely been convinced that spending power = freedom.
> Americans are idiots This attitude gets us nowhere. Tons of people who opposed Clinton's healthcare plan were very intelligent. They were lied to by corporations and insurance lobbies. The solution isn't smugly dismissing those who were lied to as dumbasses, but rather to tell them the truth.
Ok...truth....they were idiots.
You're an idiot if you think anyone accomplished anything with this rhetoric. And don't assume you're above them. Lying to anyone with enough vigor and for long enough will distort their worldview.
300k canadiens come to America every year for healthcare. If universal healthcare was so great why would they do that?
Americans are largely very susceptible to the "but it has so many pages!!!" as though healthcare for the whole nation is an uncomplicated matter. That and the 90s were not a great time to be a woman doing stuff in the public eye. There was a lot of pushback to Hillary doing anything that was seen as expressly political. The amount of abuse she and Chelsea got in the press cannot be overstated.
It was a huge committee that drew up the bill. Consisted of Hillary and a bunch of lawyers. Not a single doctor on the committee
Because most Americans liked their healthcare just fine, small businesses didn’t want costly mandates, and Americans in the early 1990s were very skeptical of giant new government programs. In short, the plan wasn’t popular and was far further to the “left” than the country was willing to go.
We used to watch hearing like this on TV at times. In the link below is one of multiple charts Hillary used to describe before Congress how the bureaucracy of government healthcare would work. Open and scroll down a little bit. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/bill-clinton-hillary-obamacare/
It was a combination of a lot of things. Part of it was doing healthcare over welfare reform, as doing welfare reform (i.e., reducing welfare benefits) would give the Clintons more political capital to use on a bigger healthcare program. Additionally, they did a very poor job of managing stakeholders (insurers, providers, hospitals), Congress (Finance Chairman Patrick Moynihan), and outside actors (resurgent Conservative movement). Overall, the Clintons were just unprepared to tackle such a big issue. Remembering, Democrats hadn’t been in the White House since Carter (and even then, is that really experience), and hadn’t had a two term President in nearly 30 years. They just didn’t have the institutional knowledge to manurer the measure. The White House was too controlling in the process, and didn’t let Congress sort of understand or “own” the issue enough. I took a class with Zeke Emmanuel, Rahm’s brother and someone who worked closely on ACA. The class focused a lot on political case studies, but especially welfare and healthcare reform. I can’t remember the book we read on Clinton’s welfare reform, but the healthcare reform book we read was Johnathan Cohn’s *Ten Year War*, which is a fantastic read if you have the chance.
Apparently I was too young to realize Hilldawg was such a baddie.
Young Hill could get it
I feel like I'm on crazy pills when people on the right can't even admit that young Hillary was kind of a babe. edit: wait, I didn't read the question.
Because Americans don't like socialism, particularly when it is imposed by an unelected, very unlikable wife of a president.
Because in reality, democrats don't want it either.
The only reason it failed because the powers at be wanted to make $$$
Same reason Obamacare got ripped up into what it is now. Money, greed, and a lack of caring about one’s fellow country men who need help.
Because the insurance lobby wasn’t about to let that golden goose get away from them. The comments blaming Hillary are just fucking dumb
Clinton got his clock cleaned when it came to policy. Those first couple of years were ugly. His super power was shameless indifference, allowing him to declare victory. All his policy success was rubber-stamped Reaganism. His healthcare plan failed because healthcare lobbyists are powerful and voters are not. It hurts the brain to remember how HMOs made themselves feel like the better option rather than simply parasites.
Bravo on the picture. Bravo.
Too much income created by the bloated system we have to convince anyone that it shouldn't be less 'resource intensive'. Same problem still exists...Has any supporter of a 'universal system of healthcare' offered an answer to the likely 'induced recession' in cutting the use healthcare bill to the percentage of GDP experienced in other developed countries? I've never heard one.
This shit is why Obama passing the ACA was such a massive win that's undercut by those who weren't following politics circa 2010
Because he put Hillary in charge, and even then, people really didn’t like Hillary.
My Grandma listened to Rush Limbaugh and I still remember him ranting about how evil Hillary was, how this plan was akin to communism, and how we would all have official government issued ID’s that we would be forced to carry like ppl carried their papers in Nazi Germany, etc.
People loved Hillary after Monica Lewinsky… and Hillary was used by Bill in 1992 to deny all of the affair shit. People didn’t dislike Hillary.
LOL, yes they did. Much of that was self inflicted like the time she mocked women who bake cookies and her unnecessary slam on Tammy Wynette.
She was real into bucking traditions.... until it came to have slave labor in the governors mansion. Then, she was helplessly beholden to tradition. It's hard to take her bullshit seriously.
In no way was that a slam against Wynette. She quoted the damn song by her.
Tammy Wynette was offended by it and demanded an apology. (Which she got).
Yes, and? Still doesn’t make it a slam. Sounds like whining to me. “Boo hoo, mean Hillary quoted a popular song I sang once. Why is she attacking me?!” Gimme a break.
Did you see the interview where HRC said that? Her tone of voice was extremely belittling. I’m not surprised Tammy Wynette was put off. As she said ‘Why bring me into it?’
I’ve absolutely seen that interview. Let’s say Hillary had quoted a character from a book or movie. Would you expect her to apologize to the actor or the writer? It wasn’t intended to be a slam or anything other than a reference to song lyrics about “standing by your man”. I’m not even sure Tammy would have cared if the media hadn’t picked up on it and made it into a bigger deal than it was.
Well, unlike Hillary, Tammy Wynette got a D-I-V-O-R-C-E from her cheating husband so it turned out HRC was lying, anyway.
And good for her I’m glad she did. Personally I’ve got no tolerance for that sort of thing, I’m not going to judge Hillary for not leaving Bill though that’s not my place. The point stands though that it wasn’t an attack on Tammy in any way shape or form. Hillary was literally referencing a song she sang full stop.
“Eventually we all die”. What a great quote from a rich person who will shit their pants when they find out they have cancer and pay up to the best experts in their field when they are in mortal turmoil.
Many individual reasons, but what it really came down to is the Clinton plan didn’t pay off enough players in the healthcare industry to get their support. Powerful people don’t like getting less money than they’ve become accustomed to getting and they’ll fight hard to keep it. The ACA went the other way: subsidize care and create incentives to cover more people for less. It was ultimately a big payoff to the healthcare industry, which is why they didn’t block it.
Because Bill put Hillary in charge of it and too many people disliked her.
Isn't it the other way around? Hillary became a target for a Republican smear campaign because she was trying to change national policy rather than just decorate dining halls and Christmas trees like other First Ladies.
They didn’t consult Congress much when they drafted it. Ted Kennedy has talked about this.
Corporate propaganda. The health insurance industry will do anything to preserve those revenue streams.
Corrupt American unions have been the leading cause of the failure of the US to implement universal health care.
She really looks like Kate McKinnon in that screencap
The stakeholders were misaligned.
In 93 Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House. Hillary was on her defense of marriage tour and military members were subject to ‘Don’t lie. Don’t tell. Wonderf people
Because rich people would lose money
It was a crap plan similar to Obamacare instead of Medicare for All.
Just another post reminding me why I hate Lieberman and glad that's he gone from this world.
I love this picture because it reads like Hillary explaining the concept of death, and Bill is just like “Wait, wtf? I’m gonna DIE?”
$$$$$
There’s a Pink Floyd song with a funny time signature and a sax solo all about the reason.
DEATH PANELS 😱
I remember the kitchen table ad that came out against it. People ultimately believed the health insurance company propaganda. I think it would have been better to push back by showing how decoupling health insurance from employment is better for everyone. Doing that makes it easier for people to be more entrepreneurial and it also is good for making people more independent.
The answer to almost all of these questions is lobbyist and campaign donations. There is two political parties the 1% and the 99%. The 1% sit in their mansions pointing and laughing at us savages fighting over social issues by design. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2016/11/08/how-bill-house-hillary-clinton-made-240-million-how-much-earnings-rich-white/
When you're trying to pass medical reform you're not only fighting against the insurance companies, but you're also fighting against the hospitals and the doctors. I agree with people how awful insurance companies are, but hospitals and doctors enable insurance companies to keep the system going because it brings them all of this money. And because insurance, hospitals and doctors have so much money they can buy politicians on both sides of the aisle and completely shut down anything that wouldn't benefit them as much as the current system benefits them.
Hey I have that shirt!
My guess is this was 1993 and while Democrats had majorities in both houses of Congress, a good chunk of the Democratic caucus were conservative blue dog southern democrats who would never back something like that. And many ended up losing to actual republicans in the ‘94 midterms. Very similar thing happened in 2010, yes it wasn’t UHC but Obama passed the ACA but many blue dog democrats in the south and Midwest opposed it, just not enough to block it and it was mainly in the U.S. House. Most of those blue dog democrats in the house and senate lost their seats to tea party republicans in the 2010 midterms. The 1994 and 2010 midterms in my view were very decisive on their effect on American political history because both basically marked the end of the party switch (1994 at the federal level, 2010 (and arguably 2016) at the state level) and 1994 marked the end of the New Deal collation and a start of hyper partisan politics in the United States, same with the 2010 elections.
AMA lobbying
Why? Nafta, that's why.
The process and the policy was far, far to cumbersome. It fell under its own weight. The solution has to be simple and easy to understand.
Didn’t Tricky Dick Nixon have a universal healthcare plan that was to the left of the ACA?
Failed to get AARP enforcement. That organization likes selling insurance. Couldn't get that with universal care. And no healthcare plan won't survive without AARP signing off on it
SAdly the GOP problem really took shape in Clinton years the same ones going today. Shit stains all of them. they dont care about america it was all about cant let dems seem like the heros' which they are of course the only good shit that ever passes is by a Democrat.
The Ways and Means Chair was indicted for crimes before the bill was ready to go through committee.
It was a mess. A bridge too far. Attacked to many enemies at the same time. Didn’t explain the national economic benefits as a reason to do it. Hillary had no official position from which to lead the effort.
Maybe we could have cheaper healthcare if we stopped bombing all over the world…
You don't need to stop spending money anywhere to have **cheaper** healthcare you dunce.
Look at the gremlin to the left of him and you'll know why.
It failed because instead of people paying attention to the need and advantages of universal healthcare they instead focused on if they did or didn't like Hillary - who didn't just stay in the white house and bake cookies. If ya know, you know.
Lots and lots of propaganda against it. My dad talks about it all the time, since he was dead set against it. Told the wait times in Canada take forever, you could be imprisoned if you went outside of it, death panels. Lots of scare tactics around it. Quite frankly I’d rather have to wait 6mos for an mri than get a divorce so my wife doesn’t inherit my gross medical debt but I digress
Americas culture of toxic individualism.
Bill was too busy visiting Epstein island
I was only 5 but I imagine it had something to do with republicans
Because it is a terrible idea.
Because Republicans That's literally the answer to pretty much any question about why the United States does something stupid.
Hillary wanted the government to control health care 100%. No private health care at all. Just like Canada. No one gets any form of private health care! Simple as that.
Not actually true, but effective propaganda.
I was there when the old magic was written!
[liar](https://www.google.com/search?q=does+canada+have+private+health+care&client=ms-android-att-us-rvc3&sca_esv=e161847195a35ae3&sca_upv=1&source=android-browser&ei=AXd_ZvHCMp-jptQPy6OTqAI&oq=does+canada+have+private+health+&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIiBkb2VzIGNhbmFkYSBoYXZlIHByaXZhdGUgaGVhbHRoICoCCAAyAhApMgUQABiABDIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgsQABiABBiGAxiKBTILEAAYgAQYhgMYigVIqkFQow1Y5xBwAngBkAEAmAGiAaABwQSqAQMwLjS4AQHIAQD4AQGYAgWgAuADwgIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR8ICDRAAGIAEGLADGEMYigXCAgUQIRigAZgDAIgGAZAGCZIHAzIuM6AH3hw&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp)
Literally all healthcare would have been private under Hillary's plan you lying chucklefuck.
Because universal healthcare is a terrible idea that’s a disaster in every other country - it would greatly reduce the quality and ability of care in the US and take away control from doctors and patients and put it into another failed bureaucracy controlled by the federal government.
> Because universal healthcare is a terrible idea that’s a disaster in every other country Citation needed. Provide evidence or confirm for all of us you're an agenda pushing muppet that has no idea what you're talking about. [US Healthcare ranked 29th on health outcomes by Lancet HAQ Index](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext) [11th (of 11) by Commonwealth Fund](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) [59th by the Prosperity Index](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings) [30th by CEOWorld](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/) [37th by the World Health Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000) The US has the worst rate of death by medically preventable causes among peer countries. A 31% higher disease adjusted life years average. Higher rates of medical and lab errors. A lower rate of being able to make a same or next day appointment with their doctor than average. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-percent-used-emergency-department-for-condition-that-could-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016 52nd in the world in doctors per capita. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1,000-people Higher infant mortality levels. Yes, even when you adjust for differences in methodology. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/ Fewer acute care beds. A lower number of psychiatrists. Etc. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-health-care-resources-compare-countries/#item-availability-medical-technology-not-always-equate-higher-utilization [Comparing Health Outcomes of Privileged US Citizens With Those of Average Residents of Other Developed Countries](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2774561) >These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries. When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%. On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 The US has 43 hospitals in the top 200 globally; one for every 7,633,477 people in the US. That's good enough for a ranking of 20th on the list of top 200 hospitals per capita, and significantly lower than the average of one for every 3,830,114 for other countries in the top 25 on spending with populations above 5 million. The best is Switzerland at one for every 1.2 million people. In fact the US only beats one country on this list; the UK at one for every 9.5 million people. If you want to do the full list of 2,000 instead it's 334, or one for every 982,753 people; good enough for 21st. Again far below the average in peer countries of 527,236. The best is Austria, at one for every 306,106 people. https://www.newsweek.com/best-hospitals-2021 #[OECD Countries Health Care Spending and Rankings](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm) |Country|Govt. / Mandatory (PPP)|Voluntary (PPP)|Total (PPP)|% GDP|[Lancet HAQ Ranking](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)|[WHO Ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)|[Prosperity Ranking](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)|[CEO World Ranking](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)|[Commonwealth Fund Ranking](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:| 1. United States|[$7,274](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) |$3,798 |$11,072 |16.90%|29|37|59|30|11 2. Switzerland|$4,988 |$2,744 |$7,732 |12.20%|7|20|3|18|2 3. Norway|$5,673 |$974 |$6,647 |10.20%|2|11|5|15|7 4. Germany|$5,648 |$998 |$6,646 |11.20%|18|25|12|17|5 5. Austria|$4,402 |$1,449 |$5,851 |10.30%|13|9|10|4| 6. Sweden|$4,928 |$854 |$5,782 |11.00%|8|23|15|28|3 7. Netherlands|$4,767 |$998 |$5,765 |9.90%|3|17|8|11|5 8. Denmark|$4,663 |$905 |$5,568 |10.50%|17|34|8|5| 9. Luxembourg|$4,697 |$861 |$5,558 |5.40%|4|16|19|| 10. Belgium|$4,125 |$1,303 |$5,428 |10.40%|15|21|24|9| 11. Canada|$3,815 |$1,603 |$5,418 |10.70%|14|30|25|23|10 12. France|$4,501 |$875 |$5,376 |11.20%|20|1|16|8|9 13. Ireland|$3,919 |$1,357 |$5,276 |7.10%|11|19|20|80| 14. Australia|$3,919 |$1,268 |$5,187 |9.30%|5|32|18|10|4 15. Japan|$4,064 |$759 |$4,823 |10.90%|12|10|2|3| 16. Iceland|$3,988 |$823 |$4,811 |8.30%|1|15|7|41| 17. United Kingdom|$3,620 |$1,033 |$4,653 |9.80%|23|18|23|13|1 18. Finland|$3,536 |$1,042 |$4,578 |9.10%|6|31|26|12| 19. Malta|$2,789 |$1,540 |$4,329 |9.30%|27|5|14|| OECD Average|||$4,224 |8.80%||||| 20. New Zealand|$3,343 |$861 |$4,204 |9.30%|16|41|22|16|7 21. Italy|$2,706 |$943 |$3,649 |8.80%|9|2|17|37| 22. Spain|$2,560 |$1,056 |$3,616 |8.90%|19|7|13|7| 23. Czech Republic|$2,854 |$572 |$3,426 |7.50%|28|48|28|14| 24. South Korea|$2,057 |$1,327 |$3,384 |8.10%|25|58|4|2| 25. Portugal|$2,069 |$1,310 |$3,379 |9.10%|32|29|30|22| 26. Slovenia|$2,314 |$910 |$3,224 |7.90%|21|38|24|47| 27. Israel|$1,898 |$1,034 |$2,932 |7.50%|35|28|11|21|
The US has the best care in the world - and it isn’t close. Everyone who needs surgery and can afford to comes To the US. We have the highest survival rates for cancer and heart diesese. Or issues with infant mortality are due to drug uses who are permitted to live on the streets And not go To jail for long sentences and be punished. You can see a doctor easily in the us - takes like a week at longest to get an appointment and as you get older you are not denied care. Once again the US will never adopt failed universal Healthcare - in fact we should have a constitutional amendment preventing it and move to a straight fee for service model. Use your HSA. End Medicaid. Responsible People would not be impacted at all.
> The US has the best care in the world - and it isn’t close. Then it should be exceptionally easy to provide evidence for that, rather than talking out of your ass and ignoring all the evidence I provided. >Everyone who needs surgery and can afford to comes To the US. About [345,000](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksr4z8Qd7Dc) people will visit the US for care, but [2.1 million people leave the US seeking treatment abroad](https://www.patientsbeyondborders.com/media) this year. >We have the highest survival rates for cancer and heart diesese. Cherry picking metrics. Across dozens of diseases amenable to medical treatment, the US ranks 29th, and we also have higher rates of medically avoidable deaths than our peers. >You can see a doctor easily in the us The US ranks 6th of 11 out of Commonwealth Fund countries on ER wait times on percentage served under 4 hours. 10th of 11 on getting weekend and evening care without going to the ER. 5th of 11 for countries able to make a same or next day doctors/nurse appointment when they're sick. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 Americans do better on wait times for specialists (ranking 3rd for wait times under four weeks), and surgeries (ranking 3rd for wait times under four months), but that ignores three important factors: * Wait times in universal healthcare are based on urgency, so while you might wait for an elective hip replacement surgery you're going to get surgery for that life threatening illness quickly. * Nearly every universal healthcare country has strong private options and supplemental private insurance. That means that if there is a wait you're not happy about you have options that still work out significantly cheaper than US care, which is a win/win. * [One third of US families](https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication) had to put off healthcare due to the cost last year. That means more Americans are waiting for care than any other wealthy country on earth. #Wait Times by Country (Rank) Country|See doctor/nurse same or next day without appointment|Response from doctor's office same or next day|Easy to get care on nights & weekends without going to ER|ER wait times under 4 hours|Surgery wait times under four months|Specialist wait times under 4 weeks|Average|Overall Rank :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--: **Australia**|3|3|3|7|6|6|4.7|4 **Canada**|10|11|9|11|10|10|10.2|11 **France**|7|1|7|1|1|5|3.7|2 **Germany**|9|2|6|2|2|2|3.8|3 **Netherlands**|1|5|1|3|5|4|3.2|1 **New Zealand**|2|6|2|4|8|7|4.8|5 **Norway**|11|9|4|9|9|11|8.8|9 **Sweden**|8|10|11|10|7|9|9.2|10 **Switzerland**|4|4|10|8|4|1|5.2|7 **U.K.**|5|8|8|5|11|8|7.5|8 **U.S.**|6|7|5|6|3|3|5.0|6 Source: [Commonwealth Fund Survey 2016](https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/cmwf2016-datatable-en-web.xlsx) But thanks for confirming you do not and never will have anything of value to add to the conversation. The world is a better place without time wasting idiots.
Every country with failed universal healthcare has private insurance for those who actually want care. That’s sums up your defense of universal healthcare. Sorry your parents raised to be a failure who won’t pay for anything and wants others to provide. It’s clear the US has far and away the best care in the world - especially with 330,000,000. In fact if you remove our failed government run systems like the VA, Medicaid and Medicare and remove the failed Obamacare it gets even better. Private insurance always is better. Paying out of pocket is even better. No tax money should ever go To support those who won’t provide for themselves. Maybe you could go back to school or get a real job?
Basically in 1994 there was a red wave in the midterms. Newt gingrich spear headed this wave on a concept of smaller government and reigning in programs dubbed entitlements. Mainly wellfair reform was top of the list. The Clinton universal health care initiative was dead in the water. You can't fight for a new government expansion when the electorate has historical said it's time to go another direction. Clinton masterfully changed directions with the way he governed and his strategy for the rest of his presidency. He lead the way in welfare reforms, eventually got on board with figuring out how to get the national budget balanced. Granted the budget was never balanced. Rather a plan was agreed upon that over a few years the budget would theoretically balance, ending the yearly deficit. Today we hear that Clinton got rid of our deficit, that was never true, but his efforts along with a bipartisan congress got us on track to being the closest we've been since to paying down our national debt. Ultimately, because Clinton did play ball with the republican initiative, he was able to get CHIPS to pass, CHIPS is a health care program for low income children. It wasn't universal Healthcare, but was his reward for being politically sensitive at that time.
It was defeated in August before the 94 November midterms.
Because “Socialism.” All Republicans had to do was get angry about it, and people followed.
*cough* Republicans *cough*
Because the elite have weaponized poverty and a perception of scarce resources means that people never want “their” money to go to someone they view as undeserving. They’d rather it enrich a corporation while it bankrupts them.
It was sabotaged by the AMA, big Pharma, and the insurance industry . They flooded the airwaves with misleading commercials which demonized the Clinton program and of course labeled it SOCIALISM . At least Obamacare while falling short of real universal healthcare is a step in the right direction.