President Johnson signing the Medicare program into law.
Below is beginning text from the Social Security Act signed into law August 14, 1935 by President Roosevelt.
An Act
To provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.
Here are the same arguments AGAINST the Social Security Act that are going on today about Health Care Reform.
The resulting Senate and House bills encountered opposition from those who considered it a governmental invasion of the private sphere and from those who sought exemption from payroll taxes for employers who adopted government-approved pension plans.Yes, that argument "governmental invasion of the private sphere," was all over the place in 1934-35. Can you imagine the uproar seniors and others who receive these benefits of this "government invasion" if Social Security and Medicare were suddenly taken away? Can you then imagine the lines for food assistance programs then doubling after benefits were revoked? Of the indignity of having to seek out assistance and charity at an elderly age when you have been a good citizen and paid your taxes, maybe even served in our Armed Forces? At any age for that matter, in this, the richest nation in the world.
Health care reform has been tossed about our national psyche for a while now. In 1945, President Truman wanted to enact a National Health Care Plan. For the full text of President Truman's message to Congress see here.
In his message, Truman argued that the federal government should play a role in health care, saying "The health of American children, like their education, should be recognized as a definite public responsibility." One of the chief aims of President Truman's plan was to insure that all communities, regardless of their size or income level, had access to doctors and hospitals.And,
The most controversial aspect of the plan was the proposed national health insurance plan. In his November 19, 1945 address, President Truman called for the creation of a national health insurance fund to be run by the federal government. This fund would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional.An optional plan? How did that go over with the special interests?
The American Medical Association (AMA) launched a spirited attack against the bill, capitalizing on fears of Communism in the public mind. The AMA characterized the bill as "socialized medicine", and in a forerunner to the rhetoric of the McCarthy era, called Truman White House staffers "followers of the Moscow party line."Socialism and Communism, sound familiar? See Tea Baggers of today for all kinds of mixed ideological name-calling. President Obama is everything from a Fascist, Marxist, Socialist to Communist--did I leave any "ists" out?
The Medicare Act was signed into law by President Johnson, July 30, 1965. The full text of President Johnson's speech here. President Truman, who was there to witness the signing was the first man to sign into the Medicare Program had this to say;
This is an important hour for the Nation, for those of our citizens who have completed their tour of duty and have moved to the sidelines. These are the days that we are trying to celebrate for them. These people are our prideful responsibility and they are entitled, among other benefits, to the best medical protection available. Not one of these, our citizens, should ever be abandoned to the indignity of charity. Charity is indignity when you have to have it. But we don't want these people to have anything to do with charity and we don't want them to have any idea of hopeless despair.And,
Mr. President, I am glad to have lived this long and to witness today the signing of the Medicare bill which puts this Nation right where it needs to be, to be right.With the same arguments being flung all over the place as the ones that were being used today, one has to question where these arguments really come from? From the Tea Baggers themselves who are calling President Obama a Fascist/Socialist/Marxist just like their counter-parts did to Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson? Well, we've certainly had a lot of Communists/Socialists elected to the White House then, and imagine, ones who did things like sign Social Security and Medicare into law? The horror!
Or do these arguments against a National Health Plan or at the very least, a Public Option, come from private insurers who have fought so hard to keep their money train rolling ahead at full speed at the expense of all ill Americans? More information about the Social Security Amendment for the Medicare Act here.
Private insurers had long considered this illness-prone population a "bad risk.” A broad debate about the need for a social insurance program to provide older Americans with reliable health care coverage started within the Social Security Administration and in Congress. Public hearings were held, and the House of Representatives considered several proposals, but the debate did notintensify until 1960, when it became clear that private insurers were becoming increasingly incapable of providing comprehensive, affordable health care coverage to the rapidly growing population of older adults.This time, let's not allow a handful of corporate rapists such as CIGNA, Aetna, WellPoint, UnitedHealth and all the others, the upper hand on how we, as a nation, look after our general well-being. Stand up for reform. It's in your best interests to look at our past, learn from it and see that all the vile rhetoric around Health Care Reform is as hollow and shallow as the people who speak it.
4 comments:
My hat is off to you for being such a strong advocate for your husband and others who may fall in his shoes. You have fought some very tough battles.
I must take issue at a couple of statements you make. First you talk of Social Security and Medicare, programs that have not been around all that long, are the best thing since sliced butter. I do not know how old you are, but I'm 44 and I'm not expecting I'll be getting any Social Security checks when I come of age. Certainly my children won't if the program stays on its current path. And it doesn't take but one Google search to see the fraud and waste in Medicare. Look what we've been left with - millions of people completely dependent upon 2 government programs to continue to live life and pay bills. That, to me, sounds more like "Providing" for the general welfare, not just promoting it. I do not think the Founding Father's ever would have wanted this type of dependency on our government. It was framed based on God-fearing, free-market based and power controlled principles to limit the size of the government, rightly keeping the power in the hands of the people. You are right that things changed with the onset of programs like Medicare and Social Security; but in hindsight can't we all see that these programs were putting us on a slow slide into an ever increasing socialist society? Just because the people warned of this in the 1940's and 1960's and the programs came into existence anyway does not mean their warnings were not valid.
Keep up the good work of keeping us informed. May God bless your new non-profit and the people you will serve with it.
My account isn't hidden! I had to login in order to post. I'm not trying to hide - honestly! Let me try again...
I'll even type my email address here: dingfamily1@roadrunner.com. My name is Deb. Truly, I'm not trying to be anonymous!
I am going against my own rule here since the dingfamily1 profile is blocked, but I will address Deb's comments.
Regarding your first issue about social security, if you have been paying into the program you should fully expect to receive your benefits when you come of age.
Let me pose this question to you since you seem certain your children won't be able to receive their benefits: If George Bush had gotten his way and privatized Social Security, handing our money over to Wall Street, would that have been a certain path to solvency? A capitalist path?
For all Americans who have paid into it all their lives and receive its benefits, they are grateful this wasn't allowed to happen, because as we all know look at what happened during this financial crisis. Social Security, had it been given over to reckless hands of Wall Street, would have been completely decimated and we'd be left with more people in this country without their retirement. Our government, in this case, takes most of the risk away leaving us with security we can count on.
As for Medicare waste, I'll take it over no-bid Halliburton contracts. I took care of my mother the last 8 months of her life and I thank God every moment for her Medicare. She was dying of congenital heart failure. What would you expect an 80 year old woman to do who lives on a fixed income? Go out into the street and die? Or should we bring back the Poor Houses?
Which is why I do not understand the Medicare recipients I see protesting against "government controlled health care" when that's what they already receive. Are they scared there's not enough to go around? The larger the group you have paying into the risk pool, the cheaper it will be for all of us, if we could all get the chance to use that program.
As for our founding fathers, I suggest you read the Federalist Papers--I had to as part of my graduate program. They could never have conceived of an industry whose only aim is to make Wall Street happy while preying upon the sick and dying as part of fattening their bottom line.
It's immoral to seek profit from those who are ill, but here we are, allowing a group of insurers to do just that. Check CIGNA's H. Edward Hanway's compensation package for the last few years. He's gone now, but seriously, $27 million per year to deny claims to people like my husband?
Do I see our capitalist republic ever becoming a socialist one? Never. Would the bank bailouts started by Bush have continued if we were heading towards socialism? No. Would I have preferred to see the banks nationalized? Yes. We paid for them, they should be ours, but we are a capitalists and that's not going to happen.
My last question to you: Do you honestly think a program where we could take care of our collective health; where if you lose your job you don't have to worry about losing your access to health care; where our citizens do not have to die at the rate of 45,000 per year--do you really think that is a "slow slide into an ever increasing socialist society?" And is health care like that, like Medicare, a bad thing?
I think we need to take our health care out of the hands of a group of corporations who would rather see us die than have to pay out claims. It's one small facet of our society, but its ramifications are huge.
I'd like you think about how much greater we would be if we, as a nation, if we did not have the burden of worry of how we'd take care of ourselves if a catastrophic illness struck us. We'd be free to pursue more avenues of wealth and small businesses would be free to figure out how to better compete without the burden of providing health insurance to its employees.
No one wants to take away your private insurance, if that's what you want it’s yours to keep, but many of us would like the choice to NOT have to depend on it for our lives and not be told we cannot have the choice due to fallacious arguments about a slide into socialism.
Post a Comment
Watch your spelling.