Abstract

The expansion of social security coverage enabled northern, industrial states to transfer a larger share of their Old Age Assistance (OAA) clients to the Social Security (OASDI) rolls at an earlier date than was possible in southern, agricultural states. Due to the differential rate of transferring clients, northern states could achieve a larger financial return from the establishment of Medicare while an increase in federal medical reimbursement for public assistance clients was more beneficial to southern jurisdictions. Although public opinion overwhelmingly supported the former option, partisan presidential politics and a split in the Democratic ranks enabled southern Democrats to thwart the will of the people by enacting legislation that significantly expanded federal contributions for the health care of indigent, elderly citizens. The evidence, therefore, indicates that regional differences in the share of elderly citizens receiving OASDI and OAA benefits contributed to the suppression of Medicare amendments. It is also evident that, in the absence of a presidential veto threat, southern opposition to Social Security health insurance would have been muted and Congress may gave enacted Medicare legislation in 1960 instead of 1965.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.