The progression of the ‘one-party, two-name’ forced healthcare system in the U.S., the most recent installment of which is known as “Obamacare” (passed 2010, but rejected by the majority of Americans), requires a brief history of how we got here and why it’s important to understand the one-party, two-name moniker. In 1965, the Social Security Act established both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare was a responsibility of the Social Security Administration (SSA), while Federal assistance to the State Medicaid programs was administered by the Social and Rehabilitation Service (SRS). SSA and SRS were agencies in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). In 1977, the Health Care Financing Administration was created under HEW to effectively coordinate Medicare and Medicaid. In 1980 HEW was divided into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). If you followed just that portion of the expansion, departments being created and split into two more agencies, you’re doing better than most; though there’s more to the education. The creation of new departments, however it is done, means more government jobs, which is not good for our economy. This is also what we the people hear every day when we hear our politicians referring to job creation; most of it is in the public sector. Further, insurance had always been a state regulated industry, until the timeline outlined below; so why the federal intrusion?
It’s important to consider dates here, specifically who was president during these 45 years as the nation steamrolled towards more unconstitutional mandates. The MSM (Mainstream Media) continues to refer to this as ‘reform’, but this writer, having been in the L&H (Life and Health) insurance field for nearly 30 years, has watched this expansionism in more ways (increased numbers of forms, questions, underwriting, etc.) than I care to recall; each with a new federal department-head attached to the regulation. But in all of this, one will notice a pattern towards Healthcare Expansionism that defies one party monopolizing its progression and implementation, contrary to popular belief. Common interpretation is that it is either Democrat or Republican, no doubt because they are always bickering over the issue in a juvenile fashion; when in fact, it is both parties that have strived towards this unconstitutional mandate. Note that each date has a new act, expansion of an existing act, creation of a new department or split of an existing department resulting.
Consider the dates, administrations and actions taken:Details