Connect

Member Research and Reports

Member Research and Reports

Michigan Team Compares the Rhetoric and Reality of Two Health Plans: Nixoncare vs. Obamacare

In a new article in the journal Pediatrics, a team from the Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit at the University of Michigan compares the reality, and the rhetoric, of two efforts to improve the nation’s health by reducing the number of people who lack health insurance.

Freed
[Dr. Gary Freed]

“It’s not that one is right and one is wrong,” says author Dr. Gary Freed, University of Michigan School of Public Health health policy researcher and pediatrician at the U-M Health System. “But more that this is a chance to address the appropriate place of political rhetoric when it comes to improving public health, and the dangers of elevating blind partisanship over meaningful debate about important issues for our nation’s health.”

Looking at this comparison of the plans, Dr. Freed says, it’s easy to see that Nixon’s proposals were far more “liberal” than what passed under the Affordable Care Act during President Obama’s first term. Yet, he notes, the rhetoric directed against the ACA – as “a radical liberal plan,” “socialized medicine” and a “job killer” – seeks to paint the law in extremely inflammatory tones.

At the time of Nixon’s proposals, those seeking a single-payer plan, led by Senator Ted Kennedy, scoffed and said that his plans did not go far enough. The Democrats’ early-70s health proposal was far more liberal than anything the party has proposed in recent times, and they heaped scorn on the Republican plan.

Dr. Freed notes that the approach Nixon took, which preserved the insurance industry’s role in health care, would have covered more people than the ACA does.

At the time, Nixon put forth this rationale for his plan: “Those who need care most often get care least. And even when the poor do get service, it is often second rate…This situation will be corrected only when the poor have sufficient purchasing power to enter the medical marketplace on equal terms with those who are more affluent.” Employees around the nation supported Nixon’s plan as a welcome alternative to the single-payer proposals.

Both the Nixon plans and the ACA were driven by a desire to provide health coverage for the uninsured segment of the American people, says Dr. Freed, and to keep health care costs from continuing to rise out of control.

“It would be a very different country today if the Nixon plan had passed,” says Dr. Freed. “Instead, we had 30 more years with one-third of the population uninsured,” even after the expansion of Medicaid to cover near-poor children in the late 1990s.

“We need to put health care in a historical perspective, and not go to extremes for political purposes,” says Dr. Freed. “I would hope this history will help policy makers think about what the policy is trying to accomplish for the American people, and not turn a blind eye to proposals simply because they’re proposed by one party or the other.”

Dr. Freed, is professor of health management and policy at Michigan, and the Percy and Mary Murphy professor of pediatrics and community health at the U-M Medical School.

To read more, click here.