Skip to main content

The Politics of Medicare and Medicaid, 50 Years Later

There’s an important lesson for today’s politicians in the genesis of Medicare, one of the nation’s landmark social programs, which was created July 30, 1965 — 50 years ago this week. It’s that government can do big things and succeed in massive projects if officials stick to their guns, offer effective leadership, nurture public support and take advantage immediately when the public mood shifts in their direction.

Medicare — the government’s program providing health insurance for the elderly — and Medicaid — which offers assistance to the poor — has become part of the fabric of American life. According to the U.S. News & World Report Health Care Index, the government now dominates the health care industry, and Medicaid continues to expand under the Affordable Care Act. Medicare has become a benchmark for measuring outcomes, and has given millions of older Americans access to doctors, hospitals and, in a relatively recent addition to its menu of benefits, prescription drugs. But the story goes back eight decades.

As Princeton historian Julian Zelizer has pointed out in The New Yorker: “We have a tendency to forget the history of laws that extended the obligations and commitments of the federal government. But the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, which shattered the barriers that had separated the federal government and the health-care system, was no less contentious than the recent debates about the Affordable Care Act,” also known as Obamacare.

During the 1930s, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt did not add health-care coverage to the plan creating Social Security, which guaranteed an income to retired workers. Roosevelt believed the health care idea would be strongly opposed in Congress and pushing it would jeopardize other parts of his New Deal.

But President Harry Truman, Roosevelt’s Democratic successor, went ahead and proposed national health insurance for all Americans in 1945 and again in 1949. As Roosevelt predicted, Truman encountered virulent opposition, with the American Medical Association calling his plan “unAmerican” and socialized medicine. Truman’s proposals died.

During the administration of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, the Medicare issue stayed largely dormant. Ike wasn’t interested in a big expansion of government into health care, although he maintained Social Security and other popular parts of the New Deal because they were so popular and valuable to everyday people.

Gradually, momentum began to build to provide health care coverage for people 65 and older.

Government studies found that older Americans needed twice as much hospital care as those under age 65; most couldn’t afford a hospital stay and medical costs were rising, adding to the plight of the elderly.

By the late 1950s, younger Democratic liberals in Congress, including Rep. Richard Bolling of Missouri and Sen. Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, were working to drum up support for Medicare. Organized labor, then a very powerful force, also endorsed Medicare. And during the 1960 presidential campaign, Democratic nominee John F. Kennedy announced his support for Medicare to outmaneuver Republican candidate Richard Nixon.

Kennedy made the case forcefully, arguing that the new program was needed in “every city and town, every hospital and clinic, every neighborhood and rest home in America — wherever our older citizens live out their lives in want and despair under the shadow of illness.” When the Massachusetts senator won, it became part of his agenda.

But the AMA and its allies — Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress — again organized a wave of opposition as they had done in Truman’s time. One of the most important foes of Medicare on Capitol Hill was Rep. Wilbur Mills, D-Ark., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and a fiscal conservative. He blocked the plan in his committee.

After Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson became president by succession. As former Senate majority leader, LBJ was a master legislator but even he was initially unable to push Medicare to fruition.

What made the difference was the election of 1964, when Johnson was elected president over Republican Barry Goldwater in a landslide, 61 percent to 39 percent, and his fellow Democrats surged to overwhelming majorities in Congress, winning 295 seats in the 435-member House and 68 in the 100-member Senate.

Chairman Mills acknowledged the political shift and became more amenable to Medicare. He was heavily pressured by LBJ and concluded that newly ascendant liberals would roll over him and pass the measure even if he remained opposed to it. So he decided to work with them rather than against them, shape the legislation and claim at least part of the credit for passage, according to historian Zelizer.

The final administration measure included a voluntary national program to pay doctors’ costs financed by federal revenue and contributions from beneficiaries, hospital insurance financed by Social Security taxes and medical coverage for the poor called Medicaid, with Medicaid benefits varying from state to state.

The House passed the bill 313-115 on April 8, 1965. The Senate passed another version 68-21 on July 9.

After Congress reconciled the House and Senate measures, President Johnson signed Medicare into law on July 30 in Independence, Missouri, the hometown of former President Truman, the earlier champion of the idea, who attended the ceremony.

“The ultimate significance of what happened in 1965 is that it gave government the major role in overseeing the health-care system, now nearly a fifth of the economy,” writes economist Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post.

The program became so popular that President George W. Bush, a self-described conservative, embraced a change to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and millions of Americans have come to rely on it. The drug benefit was enacted in 2003 and went into effect in 2006.

Today, Medicare is being questioned again in some quarters. Conservative critics have resurrected the charge that there is too much of a role for the federal government, and they say costs are getting out of hand.

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida and a front runner for the GOP presidential nomination, says he wants to phase out Medicare. He would replace it with a system in which people obtain government funds and use them to find health insurance in the private marketplace. But Bush makes clear that elderly Americans who currently have Medicare won’t lose any coverage. Only the elderly in the future would be affected, Bush says. His guarantee that current benefits won’t end shows the importance of Medicare in the lives of everyday people.

A new report in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicates the success of Medicare. Older Americans on Medicare are spending less time in the hospital, with an estimated 3.5 million fewer hospitalizations in 2013 than in 1999, and beneficiaries are living longer. The average cost of a hospital stay dropped during 15 years from $3,290 to $2,801 in inflation-adjusted dollars for patients in the traditional Medicare program, according to an NPR summary of the AMA report.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare spending will increase from 3 percent of GDP in 2014 to 4.7 percent by 2040, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports, which defenders of the program say is manageable with some reforms.

The issue of health care remains volatile, as reflected in the continuing debate over President Obama’s signature health-care law, the Affordable Care Act, which has provided health insurance to millions who didn’t have it before.

But the basic program of Medicare now covers an estimated 55 million people, and three-quarters of Americans consider Medicare “very important,” according to a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Seventy percent say it should remain as it is. So politicians who propose major changes do so at their peril.

More from U.S. News

In 1965, Experts Warned of Medicare-Induced Crisis

5 Challenges Facing Medicaid at 50

How Experts in 1965 Thought Medicare Would Change Health Care

The Politics of Medicare and Medicaid, 50 Years Later originally appeared on usnews.com

Don’t Settle for Student Loans to Pay for Online Education

Online college programs are becoming a more popular choice for prospective students, with one study finding that more than 6 million students enrolled in at least one online course in fall 2015. The popularity of these courses can be attributed in part to their flexibility with working adults' schedules, students' ability to progress more quickly through online programs and, oftentimes, cheaper tuition. [See 10 low-cost online bachelor's programs for out-of-state students.]Online degrees can be beneficial to many college students, but some studies have shown online learners complete their programs at lower rates than students at traditional brick-and-mortar campuses. Individuals with student loans but no degree comprise two-thirds of defaulted borrowers. Though these numbers are not encouraging, just like for traditional programs, there are ways to reduce how much you'll need to borrow for an online program to ensure you won't become one of these statistics. Don't just settle on borrowing student loans to cover the whole cost of your program and living expenses. Instead, start thinking about how to cut costs and cover your balance in different ways, such as the following. -- Grants and scholarships: Even though you are taking an online course, you can still apply and receive grants and scholarships. But your first step should be to complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, commonly referred to as the FAFSA, which will allow you to receive a Pell Grant if your expected family contribution is low enough. The EFC criteria and award amounts are adjusted annually, but the 2017-2018 academic year awards range from $606 to $5,920, which could significantly lower the amount you borrow annually. Your next step is to apply for scholarships. You can start by checking online scholarship search engines, such as the Salt Scholarship Search, College Board's BigFuture and Peterson's. But don't forget to take advantage of local organizations and your school's financial aid office. Both may offer scholarships that you can't find with a national scholarship search. [Review these 10 sites to kick off your scholarship search.]For instance, organizations like the Elks Club, Knights of Columbus or the Rotary Club typically offer scholarships annually to local students. Just because you're going to school online doesn't mean you're ineligible. Visit your local library for scholarship listings, and ask around town. You might be surprised how many local organizations offer scholarships. While these scholarships typically aren't large, every little bit counts. Each dollar you receive in a scholarship is a dollar you don't have to borrow and pay interest on. -- Work-study: Another option for online students may be work-study awards. Not all students enrolled in online programs are eligible, but students at some schools -- including, for example, SUNY Empire State College and Liberty University -- are. Work-study awards are not given upfront like scholarships and grants. In most cases, they are an offer to earn up to the awarded amount if you secure an eligible work-study job. While there is a misconception that all work-study jobs must be on campus, students can work for off-campus, nonprofit or public employers as long as the work is in the public's interest. You may be able to work for a for-profit employer if the job is relevant to your course of study. No matter who the outside employer is, it will need to have an established agreement with your college for you to receive work-study funds. Remember, to be eligible for federal financial aid, you must be enrolled and pursuing a degree or certificate. If you're not working toward a credential, Pell Grants and work-study won't be option, but you may still be able to take advantage of private scholarships -- just be sure to read the eligibility criteria carefully. [Explore what to know about financial aid in online programs.]-- Pay as you go: One of the great benefits to enrolling online is the flexible schedule, which can allow you to complete your college coursework around your responsibilities. But prospective students often overlook using their part- or full-time job earnings as an option for paying for college. Almost 80 percent of college students in 2015 worked at least part time while attending classes, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. By budgeting and thinking strategically about your college costs, you can likely reduce your dependence on student loans by paying a portion out of pocket. Many -- but not all -- online programs are less expensive than traditional programs and often have shorter payment periods. Six, eight or 10 weeks are common course durations. Because of the frequency of payments in an online setting, you may be well-placed to pay as you go and possibly avoid borrowing altogether. Attending college online and avoiding student loans may be challenging, but if you are willing to put in the effort, you can limit the amount you need to borrow. More from U.S. News Q&A: Understanding Student Loan Discharge Eligibility Student Loan Refinancing Isn't Right for All Borrowers
Read Next Story