--- On Wed, 6/17/09, Mark Rickling <mrickling at gmail.com> wrote:
> Right, but the point still stands: the assertion that
> there's never been a
> "truly national social program" is absurd.
[WS:] Absurd? The old age insurance (aka Social Security) implemented in 1935 - the only federal program that may qualify as "truly national" - is an exception that proves the rule. First, this was the most conservative of the social security measures proposed at the time. Other alternatives that included employment security plans and a federal social assistance program (rather than a contributory insurance plan merely administered by the fed) were ruled out. In fact, the old age insurance scheme (Social Security) adopted in 1935 was promoted as such - as an insurance purchased by eligible workers and guaranteed by the fed. As such it was sharply contrasted by proponents and administrators with "government welfare" targeting the poor. Only after WW2 the program was extended to cover survivors as well by adding Medicare.
More to the point, this was an extraordinary measure passed during extraordinary times, when the capital was on its knees and the public looked for government for solutions. But even in such extraordinary circumstances, only the most conservative solution was adopted. All other proposals of government programs, be it welfare, employment security or health care have been steadily defeated since then by the unholy alliance of employers, doctors, insurance companies, racist Southern politicians, and assorted conservative forces. Not a single truly national social program has been passed since then.
Great society programs? All of them were basically federally funded largesse to local political machines, nonprofits, and assorted interest group. This is not a national approach but the usual "public private partnership" (read: pork and barrel on the public dime) that characterizes government policy in this country.
And then there is education - locally funded and controlled, insular to the bone, that is the anti-thesis to national approach, which sets the US apart form most other developed countries and puts it on a par with Taliban.
So the US is uniquely anti-national in all its government policy except defense among developed democracies (except perhaps Switzerland). This is a fact which I tried to underline in my posting on the chances (or rather lack thereof) of passing any national health care plan.
So read my lips - it ain't gonna happen. Any proposal of a national health system will be soundly defeated by an unholy alliance of the insurance companies, the AMA, business leagues, pork-and-barrel politicians and assorted local wackos. The US history is a living proof of it.
Wojtek