The Political Life Of Medicare

In recent years, bitter partisan disputes have erupted over Medicare reform. Democrats and Republicans have fiercely contested issues such as prescription drug coverage and how to finance Medicare to absorb the baby boomers. As Jonathan Oberlander demonstrates in The Political Life of Medicare, these developments herald the reopening of a historic debate over Medicare's fundamental purpose and structure. Revealing how Medicare politics and policies have developed since Medicare's enactment in 1965 and what the program's future holds, Oberlander's timely and accessible analysis will interest anyone concerned with American politics and public policy, health care politics, aging, and the welfare state.

On July 30, 1965, President Johnson flew to Independence, Missouri to sign the Medicare bill. The new statute included two related insurance programs to finance substantial portions of the hospital and physician expenses incurred by Americans over the age of sixty-five. Public attempts to improve American health standards have typically precipitated bitter debate, even as the issue has shifted from the professional and legal status of physicians to the availability of hospital care and public health programs. In The Politics of Medicare, Marmor helps the reader understand Medicare's origins, and he interprets the history of the program and explores what happened to Medicare politically as it turned from a legislative act in the mid-1960s to a major program of American government in the three decades since. This is a vibrant study of an important piece of legislation that asks and answers several questions: How could the American political system yield a policy that simultaneously appeased anti-governmental biases and used the federal government to provide a major entitlement? How was the American Medical Association legally overcome yet placated enough to participate in the program? And how did the Medicare law emerge so enlarged from earlier proposals that themselves had caused so much controversy? Theodore R. Marmor teaches politics and public policy in Yale University's management and law schools as well as in its political science department. He is also the author of Understanding Health Care Reform and coauthor of America's Misunderstood Welfare State.

Medicare Politics examines how media coverage, political information, and political participation affect Medicare policy choices. This book is an excellent reference for political science literature concerning the impact of media, the roles of political information with respect to public opinion, and political participation. Each chapter provides analysis that expands political science and health services research by testing political science questions in a way that further our understanding of a significant health policy program affected by the political process: Medicare. The introduction ties the chapters together and discusses the importance of understanding Medicare politics as the impending retirement of the baby boom generation forces policymakers to grapple with how Medicare will support future generations. The first chapter shows how Medicare coverage varied throughout the 1995 debates concerning Medicare reform and links coverage with public opinion about policymakers. The second chapter demonstrates how knowledge of the Medicare program affected the public's support for Medicare reform options in 1995. The final chapter examines the impact of the political participation and mobilization of Medicare beneficiaries in recent presidential elections. Medicare Politics ends with a discussion of implications for future Medicare reform debates.

On July 30, 1965, President Johnson flew to Independence, Missouri to sign the Medicare bill. The new statute included two related insurance programs to finance substantial portions of the hospital and physician expenses incurred by Americans over the age of sixty-five. Public attempts to improve American health standards have typically precipitated bitter debate, even as the issue has shifted from the professional and legal status of physicians to the availability of hospital care and public health programs. In The Politics of Medicare, Marmor helps the reader understand Medicare's origins, and he interprets the history of the program and explores what happened to Medicare politically as it turned from a legislative act in the mid-1960s to a major program of American government in the three decades since. This is a vibrant study of an important piece of legislation that asks and answers several questions: How could the American political system yield a policy that simultaneously appeased anti-governmental biases and used the federal government to provide a major entitlement? How was the American Medical Association legally overcome yet placated enough to participate in the program? And how did the Medicare law emerge so enlarged from earlier proposals that themselves had caused so much controversy?

Looks in detail at how the Howard government was elected on a promise to maintain Medicare, but has instead introduced a series of privatisation measures. Recent experiences suggest that emerging equity concerns, financial pressures and occasional crises will de- stabilise the present public-private mix.

Discusses Medicare's emergence as a political issue and the responses it elicited within the federal government and American society

How Successive Governments Have Weakened the Foundation of All Canadian's Social and Economic Security At some point you will find yourself lying in a hospital bed. There is a good chance that your bed will be a firm, rubber pad held secure between two rails and parked along a corridor in a busy emergency department. Moans of “Nurse!” will echo from the beds ahead of you in line. Those pleas will fall largely on deaf ears. Your hospital is underfunded and understaffed. Welcome to the current reality of Medicare in the 21st century. Using searing analogies and first-hand accounts, Dr. Whatley makes the argument that the current Medicare system is unsustainable and unless critical choices and changes are made soon, the publicly funded, single-payer system in Canada will implode. Successive governments, regardless of political stripe, know all too well that Canada's system of health care is one of the defining characteristics of “being a Canadian”, and any changes deemed harmful will have them thrown out of power. Thus, decades of cuts around the margins, centralized control, federal/provincial infighting, and government oversight has left doctors and hospitals with little input on how your health dollars are allocated and spent. Citizens are being left to languish in pain for months, sometimes years, because the current cost and delivery system is programmed for the benefit of governments staying in power. That was not what was intended. Medicare should be about delivering high-quality and timely healthcare value for Canadians. This is not an easy fix. Treatment starts with a serious look at the disease, and Dr. Whatley pulls no punches. But what sounds like a radical new approach is neither new nor radical. He is not arguing for the end of Medicare per se but is making the case to let medical professionals — those providing the services — become equal partners in its design, implementation and delivery.

Why are so many American social programs delegated to private actors? And what are the consequences for efficiency, accountability, and the well-being of beneficiaries? The Delegated Welfare State examines the development of the American welfare state through the lens of delegation: how policymakers have avoided direct governmental provision of benefits and services, turning to non-state actors for the governance of social programs. Utilizing case studies of Medicare and the 2009-10 health care reform, Morgan and Campbell argue that the prevalence of delegated governance reflects the powerful role of interest groups in American politics, the dominance of Congress in social policymaking, and deep contradictions in American public opinion. Americans want both social programs and small government, leaving policy makers in a bind. Contracting out public programs to non-state actors masks the role of the state and enlists private allies who push for passage. Although delegated governance has been politically expedient, enabling the growth of government programs in an anti-government political climate, it raises questions about fraud, abuse, administrative effectiveness, and accountability. In probing both the causes and consequences of delegated governance, The Delegated Welfare State offers a novel interpretation of both American social welfare politics and the nature of the American state.