Icon and taboo: single-payer politics in Canada and the US

C. Tuohy
{"title":"Icon and taboo: single-payer politics in Canada and the US","authors":"C. Tuohy","doi":"10.1080/21699763.2018.1550010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 1965 and 1966, the United States and Canada adopted single-payer models of government insurance for physician and hospital services – universal in Canada, but restricted to certain population groups in the US. At the time, the American and Canadian political economies of health care and landscapes of public opinion were remarkably similar, and the different policy designs must be understood as products of the distinctive macro-level politics of the day. Subsequently, however, the different scopes of single-payer coverage would drive the two systems in different directions. In Canada, the single-payer system became entrenched in popular support and in the nexus of interest it created between the medical profession and the state. In the US, Medicare became similarly entrenched in popular support, but did so as part of the larger multi-payer private insurance system. In the process universal single-payer coverage became politically iconic in Canada and taboo in the US.","PeriodicalId":38249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21699763.2018.1550010","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21699763.2018.1550010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT In 1965 and 1966, the United States and Canada adopted single-payer models of government insurance for physician and hospital services – universal in Canada, but restricted to certain population groups in the US. At the time, the American and Canadian political economies of health care and landscapes of public opinion were remarkably similar, and the different policy designs must be understood as products of the distinctive macro-level politics of the day. Subsequently, however, the different scopes of single-payer coverage would drive the two systems in different directions. In Canada, the single-payer system became entrenched in popular support and in the nexus of interest it created between the medical profession and the state. In the US, Medicare became similarly entrenched in popular support, but did so as part of the larger multi-payer private insurance system. In the process universal single-payer coverage became politically iconic in Canada and taboo in the US.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
图标与禁忌:加拿大和美国的单一付款人政治
摘要1965年和1966年,美国和加拿大为医生和医院服务采用了单一付款人的政府保险模式——在加拿大是普遍的,但仅限于美国的某些人口群体,不同的政策设计必须被理解为当时独特的宏观政治的产物。然而,随后,单一付款人覆盖范围的不同将推动这两个系统朝着不同的方向发展。在加拿大,单一付款人制度在民众的支持以及它在医疗行业和国家之间建立的利益关系中根深蒂固。在美国,医疗保险也同样得到了民众的支持,但它是更大的多付款人私人保险系统的一部分。在此过程中,普遍的单一付款人保险在加拿大成为政治标志,在美国成为禁忌。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Social policy in Africa: Risks, protection, and dynamics The challenge of youth unemployment in Nigeria International charitable connections: Variation in the countries of operation of overseas charities Scales of ideational policy influence: A multi-level, actor-centric, and institutionalist perspective on the role of ideas in African social policy The state role in civilising childcare – comparing policy intentions with childcare in Brazil and Denmark
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1