e was attempted by the Clinton administration and ended in a dismal failure. The reasons for this failure are many, some of which include the following:
Strong opposition elements versus weak, poorly organized proponent forces.
An overly complex and bureaucratic plan that was drafted by individuals who were not very adept in getting legislation through the Washington ôsystem.ö
Inability of the planÆs developers to seek the all to important ôcollaborativeö approval of key Congressional leaders, opinion leaders/makers, and the public.
The inability of the administration to focus on a timely delivery of the plan.
Promise of too much to the wrong constituent elements.
Thus the failure of the Clinton administration to bring the initiative forward into a viable plan represented another death knell to a process that has kept the United States from joining all but one of the planetÆs industrialized nations in the embrace of government-assured universal healthcare coverage.
The form of government present in the United States has proven to be a workable model in many areas. One of its greatest strengths is its fragmentation and separation of powers between the federal and state sectors. This was an intentional architectural design to allow these groups to properly balance each other. Unfortunately it also causes greater opportunity to thwart the process of successful formulation and implementation of a nationalized healthcare system.
The role of most central governments has always been to protect society from ôcommon risks.ö This was certainly true of the early years of the United States where ôfederalö government interaction was confined to protecting society from things such as epidemic disease and meeting the basic needs of the poor and destitute. This was a carryover from England. In short the federal government took a minimalist role in all matters of health until the 1920s with the passage of the Sh...