Why Centralized Health Care Failed (AKA)
Why Centralized Health Care Failed (AKA; How I learned to Hate the System) An old woman wakes up to the sound of coughing next to her. Her husband has been sick for weeks now, and his raspy wet choking seems to be only getting worse. She tries to go back to sleep, but she can't; her thoughts are filled with uncertainty and fear; they have no insurance, and they cannot afford to go to the hospital. This is just one casualty of America's war with itself over Health care. As of this writing, American's health care system is a mess. Millions of American's currently live without health insurance, doctors seemed to be swamped with bureaucracy, and health care costs throughout the nation are skyrocketing out of control. The reasoning behind
…show more content…
one in which the federal government gives states "blocks" of money, which the states then distribute under their own legislation and criteria. Some states simply kept the federal rules, but others used the money for non-welfare programs, such as subsidized childcare (to allow parents to work) or subsidized public transportation (to allow people to travel to work without owning cars). Critics made dire predictions about the consequences of welfare reform. Many claimed that the five-year time limit was needlessly short, and that those who exceeded the limit through no fault of their own might turn to begging or crime. Others criticized the block grant system, claiming that states would not be able to administer the program properly, or would be too motivated by cost. Finally, it was claimed that although the bill might work in a booming economy like that of the 1990s, it would cause significant harm in a recession. Supporters of the bill held that the five-year limit was a necessity, that allowing states to experiment would result in improving welfare, and that the number of people affected by the five-year limit would be small. These controversies have not been fully …show more content…
Johnathan Oberlander, a leading political theorist, points to his reasoning why policy failed in his article "The Politics of Health Reform: Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good Plans". He writes,
Unlike a British-style parliamentary system, US constitutional arrangements provide no assurance that the president will represent the same party as the congressional majority; divided government is a regular feature of US political life. Moreover, even if the president's own party holds majorities in the House and Senate, Congress may rebuff the presidents priorities; partisan majorities do not necessarily produce policy majorities in American politics.
A similar idea is reflected by Watt's and Steinmo, who write, The original design of a fragmented and federated national political system serving and increasingly large and diverse polity has been fragmented by a series of political reforms beginning with the Progressive era and culminating with the congressional reforms of the mid-1970's. This institutional structure yields enormous power to intransigent interest groups and thus makes efforts by progressive reformers such as President
one in which the federal government gives states "blocks" of money, which the states then distribute under their own legislation and criteria. Some states simply kept the federal rules, but others used the money for non-welfare programs, such as subsidized childcare (to allow parents to work) or subsidized public transportation (to allow people to travel to work without owning cars). Critics made dire predictions about the consequences of welfare reform. Many claimed that the five-year time limit was needlessly short, and that those who exceeded the limit through no fault of their own might turn to begging or crime. Others criticized the block grant system, claiming that states would not be able to administer the program properly, or would be too motivated by cost. Finally, it was claimed that although the bill might work in a booming economy like that of the 1990s, it would cause significant harm in a recession. Supporters of the bill held that the five-year limit was a necessity, that allowing states to experiment would result in improving welfare, and that the number of people affected by the five-year limit would be small. These controversies have not been fully …show more content…
Johnathan Oberlander, a leading political theorist, points to his reasoning why policy failed in his article "The Politics of Health Reform: Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good Plans". He writes,
Unlike a British-style parliamentary system, US constitutional arrangements provide no assurance that the president will represent the same party as the congressional majority; divided government is a regular feature of US political life. Moreover, even if the president's own party holds majorities in the House and Senate, Congress may rebuff the presidents priorities; partisan majorities do not necessarily produce policy majorities in American politics.
A similar idea is reflected by Watt's and Steinmo, who write, The original design of a fragmented and federated national political system serving and increasingly large and diverse polity has been fragmented by a series of political reforms beginning with the Progressive era and culminating with the congressional reforms of the mid-1970's. This institutional structure yields enormous power to intransigent interest groups and thus makes efforts by progressive reformers such as President