You might wonder who made the following pledge to ruin our great and glorious free market health care system. I mean, come on. Only a Demorat commie subversive would propose “universal health care coverage,” right?
“I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses …”
That’s Hillary talking, right, or Edwards? Maybe Obama? Well, actually, the person who proposed this evil socialistic plot to destroy all that is right and good about the bestest health care system in the world was none other than — Richard Milhaus Nixon:
“It was an extremely extensive plan, as I remember, that would have given universal coverage” for health care, recalled Rudolph Penner, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and an economic official in the Ford administration.
Nixon introduced his Comprehensive Health Insurance Act on Feb. 6, 1974, days after he used what would be his final State of the Union address to call for universal access to health insurance. […]
Nixon said his plan would build on existing employer-sponsored insurance plans and would provide government subsidies to the self-employed and small businesses to ensure universal access to health insurance. He said it would not create a new federal bureaucracy.
Ah, those Big Government types, always out to ruin Capitalism with their grand schemes to benefit the lives of the little people. Socialists all. I mean, it’s not like our health system is all that bad, is it? Look at Bill Frist and his family. They’re doing just fine under our current lazzez faire approach to health care. And anyone invested in pharmaceutical companies has to be pretty happy about the way we deliver health care to Americans. And health insurance companies and their executives? They haven’t done too badly either.
So why do we need universal health care, Mr. Nixon? What were you, some kind of Clintonista before Clinton became Clinton? Or were you a secret Democrat mole in the Republican Party? Does make one wonder how this guy could get away with calling himself a Republican, now doesn’t it?
The other way to look at the many similarities between Nixon and Clinton is to use it as an example of how far to the (traditional) right Clinton was (and is), and how much farther to the right the Republicans have moved over the last thirty years: Nixon, from the standpoint of current GOP ideology, was a liberal.
Nixon also considered shortening the work week, among other things. Unlike the current, new-right president, he wasn’t all bad, nor was he entirely immune to common sense. That’s not to discount his extensive array of personality flaws and legal misdeeds; I just want to point out that the current GOP is so much worse than Nixon, and the current Democrats hardly any better, that Nixon almost looks good by way of comparison.
At the time, of course, there was a clear contrast between Richard Nixon’s positions and liberal positions. We need to get back to that point. I’m pretty sure that the very Nixonian Hillary Clinton isn’t going to take us there, nor is the empty suit of Barack Obama. Edwards might be a step in the right direction, but I don’t honestly know if I can trust any of these turkeys anymore.
Very good analysis. Nixon never forgot his family roots in poverty. I recall at least that he was capable of signing into law the Food Stamp program. I think his mother probably ghosted in such advocacy for the poor.
Nixon’s major fault was the Southern Strategy, which would ultimately damage any programming directed at the poor for years to come, thanks to Reagan, the most antiBlack and antipoverty president ever. We see its legacy today in the Democratic platforms of candidates, where discussion of poverty is politically suicidal. Let the fuckers and their children fend for themselves.
and what was with the Environment Protection Agency?
Everyone knows the environment can kick ass on its own, and don’t need no stinking protection.
These are indeed strange times when we look back upon Nixon as (somewhat) sensible.
“Strange” is not the word I would have chosen, but it’s certainly the best one can do and still keep one’s G-rating. 😉
It is worth noting that there have been a number of presidents with gross personality flaws and lackluster performances as commander-in-chief whose domestic programs were fairly sensible. Nixon, LBJ, and Truman spring to mind in the postwar era. I think there’s a lesson there, both about the kind of person who tends to become president, and about the deleterious effect of war on domestic affairs.
I want socialized medicine!
I’m with you! Let’s leave this “insurance” crap out of the equation entirely!!!
Who are the sickos who don’t want socialized medicine? Profit and people’s health should not be mixed.