Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

polly7

(20,582 posts)
26. Not quite.
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:50 PM
Nov 2013
Medicare was born in Saskatchewan on July 1, 1962. It would be the first government-controlled, universal, comprehensive single-payer medical insurance plan in North America. It was a difficult birth. The North American medical establishment and the entire insurance industry were determined to stop Medicare in its tracks. They feared it would become popular and spread, and they were right. Within 10 years all of Canada was covered by a medical insurance system based on the Saskatchewan plan, and no serious politician would openly oppose it.


The CMA strategy backfired. Diefenbaker appointed fellow Conservative and old seat-mate from law school, Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, to chair the Royal Commission. The Commission was intended to examine all aspects of Canadian health care. However, the public hearings overlapped with the debate then raging in Saskatchewan that was becoming a major issue in the House of Commons and beyond. Dennis Gruending, in his superb biography of Emmett Hall, describes the excitement around the hearings, which played to packed houses around the country. Labour and farm organizations, consumer groups, community associations and many churches recommended a public plan similar to the one introduced in Saskatchewan in the midst of such controversy. The CMA, the private insurance industry and their business allies wanted the government to endorse the plans already operating under the auspices of organized medicine and the insurance companies. People could pay their own premiums, with the government subsidizing the premiums of the poor based on means tests. Gruending points out that Hall examined the evidence objectively and came down on the side of public Medicare, and then convinced those who were skeptical to go along with it. The first volume of the commission report, issued in June 1964, came out in favour of a comprehensive health insurance program to be jointly financed by the federal and provincial governments. “Although he didn’t admit it in the report, Hall’s proposal was essentially the Saskatchewan model on a national scale,” Gruending wrote.

The reaction to the Hall Report could probably best be summed up with the expression “all hell broke loose.” The usual suspects mounted a rhetorical battle on a national scale, generally divided along class and ideological lines. Emmett Hall, by now elevated to the Supreme Court, threw himself into the debate in favour of public Medicare, an unprecedented move for a Supreme Court Justice and Chairman of a Royal Commission. By 1964 the pro-Medicare forces in the country were riding the crest of public opinion during a period when the political culture was moving to the left. The political alignment of national parties saw six years of minority governments over three elections between 1962 and 1968, and this favoured those political forces attempting to move the country in a more progressive direction. The NDP was growing and this strengthened left Liberals who argued that their party must protect their left flank. This in turn encouraged the red Tories within the Progressive Conservatives, who argued that the party must move left to remain electorally competitive. All of this was occurring during a minority situation when an election might occur at any time and no party wanted to be caught on the wrong side of a popular issue like public Medicare.

It took fierce struggles within both the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parliamentary parties, but in the end the party whips forced the right wing into submission. The National Medical Care Insurance Act was passed in the House of Commons on December 8, 1966, by an overwhelming vote of 177 to 2. The starting date was July 1, 1968, and the Act provided that the federal government would pay about half of Medicare costs in any province with insurance plans that met the criteria of being universal, publicly administered, portable and comprehensive. By 1971 all provinces had established plans which met the criteria. Forty-five years later, the right to universal and equitable Medicare is now in perhaps the greatest danger it has faced since 1970. The political culture has lurched dangerously to the right and the Harper government has essentially declared that it has no intention of enforcing the Canada Health Act. The popular forces which made Medicare possible will have to be revitalized if we are to preserve the achievements which took decades of struggle to accomplish.


http://canadiandimension.com/articles/4795/

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Well of course mandatory private insurance is going to make people sign up for private insurance Fumesucker Nov 2013 #1
So what you mean is that people would not have signed up without the mandate, right? JoePhilly Nov 2013 #2
I read that as whether people can get care without going bankrupt HereSince1628 Nov 2013 #3
So let's put the blame on the GOP Governors in those states ... JoePhilly Nov 2013 #7
What's needed is rather more than a blame the politicians game HereSince1628 Nov 2013 #10
Lovely talk. What matters is that the Republican Party does not care whether people JDPriestly Nov 2013 #30
I really do understand the nature of campaigning. HereSince1628 Nov 2013 #31
“Identifying Problem?" busterbrown Nov 2013 #37
Some would and some wouldn't n/t Fumesucker Nov 2013 #5
Under single payer if you don't you go to jail. joshcryer Nov 2013 #12
I have family in Europe I stay in contact with Fumesucker Nov 2013 #34
Many people would not have. Many people never did. Many people won't sign up, even with the merrily Nov 2013 #23
You have a flare for ambiguity. JoePhilly Nov 2013 #25
Most people can understand what I posted. merrily Nov 2013 #27
Yes, that many people did things, or also never did them. JoePhilly Nov 2013 #28
YOU ARE CORRECT Skittles Nov 2013 #36
Then why do polls show that MA residents are very happy with their insurance? n/t pnwmom Nov 2013 #8
Yes, and there MUST be mandates to get everyone in. But most get subsidies. It is a STEP. And, RBInMaine Nov 2013 #14
Ain't it the truth?! Tigress DEM Nov 2013 #4
Of course it can work - TBF Nov 2013 #6
And Canada proves that a country of 35 million can make single-payer work; the UK that a country of pampango Nov 2013 #9
Agreed. Now please tell us how you are going to get the US House to approve that. RBInMaine Nov 2013 #15
I hope that is a rhetorical request. pampango Nov 2013 #21
But if the ACA isn't killed by SCOTUS we'll NEVER get Single Payer! joshcryer Nov 2013 #11
We will not get national single payer anytime soon. End the pipedream and do what is possible. RBInMaine Nov 2013 #16
We'll get it faster than Canada, I bet. joshcryer Nov 2013 #17
15-20? pangaia Nov 2013 #18
That's my cynical estimate. joshcryer Nov 2013 #19
Not quite. polly7 Nov 2013 #26
I was more going by Tommy Douglas' hospital care. joshcryer Nov 2013 #29
Vermont has started single payer. vinny9698 Nov 2013 #33
It's not about not being "done right" at the federal level frazzled Nov 2013 #13
We keep... DirtyDawg Nov 2013 #20
See what happens when you make Republicans irrelevant? Jack Rabbit Nov 2013 #22
Romneycare proved Obamacare CAN work. However, single payer is the goal. merrily Nov 2013 #24
Love Dr. Krugman and his clear eyes. Hekate Nov 2013 #32
Short Term It's Fine colsohlibgal Nov 2013 #35
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Krugman: If Obamacare can...»Reply #26