How Accurate is History?
Have you ever wondered how much we learned about our history was
modified to suit the narrative of those in power both when it happened and
afterwards? This has bothered me more recently when there have been
attempts to remove statues of important figures involved in the founding of
North America. Does destroying them or putting them in storage erase them
from history?
Revisionist history can tell a story that is either incomplete, partly true, or in
extreme cases, outright lies. In all of these cases, while it may support some
current causes, is it serving our best interest in the long term? We can't
change what actually happened, but we can change how we present what
happened.
For a period of time when I was in Washington DC, I participated in lobbying
for Association Health Plans that would allow the small companies that were
members of associations to enjoy the same protection from health insurance
state mandates that large companies enjoy. Large companies were immune
from the state mandates by federal law at that time. Associated with this
effort were hearings on this topic that were held by the committee in
congress charged with studying this proposed bill and determining if this
issue should be put on the congressional agenda for a vote. That s the way
the process works. These hearings were either televised or reported on by
the media.
At that time the Clinton administration was pushing universal health care, so
they were against any association health plan bill. The reason for their
objection was that somewhere around 50% of the employees in the USA
work for small businesses and the passage of this bill would largely eliminate
the problem they were trying to solve.
The media were strongly in support of the Clinton plan as well. The
insurance lobby was also against this bill since most small businesses were
forced to stop offering health insurance as a benefit because of the cost or to
leave their employees to seek individual coverage. The premiums for
individual coverage were a lot higher than they would be if the association
health plan passed and the benefits paid would be the same yielding more
profits for the insurance companies.
Public sentiment would also factor into what happened from there on with
this issue. Factoring this all into the matter, what was reported on TV was
only testimony and/or data that would not support this bill.
What was not reported were the benefits specifically that around 50% of
working Americans would enjoy if it passed. I attended the hearings and
heard both sides presented but only one side was reported.
In the end this bill never made it to the house floor for a vote leaving many
Americans without health insurance or much poorer because of the high
premiums they were forced to pay.
Why did something like this never gets to a vote? let me count the ways!
The administration in power wanted to champion universal health care to
solve the growing problem of the uninsured but there weren’t enough
uninsured to make a strong case. So, defeating this bill would greatly
increase the number of uninsured, creating the problem that they would
then position themselves solve. They also had to get enough of the voting
public on their side to be credible so their coconspirator, the mainstream
press, needed to control the narrative being communicated to the public.
The insurance lobby also had a lot to gain since they could charge much
higher premiums to increase their profits. The pharmaceutical and health
care lobby also had a lot to gain as they could and did jack up the cost of
premiums. I will bet that you never heard this side of this story because that
part of history was modified by those who had the most to gain. The bill
never got out of committee to a vote on the house floor because the
powerful sponsors and cosponsors needed to accomplish this were not going
to sponsor this bill because they had been influenced by the wealthy
insurance and health care lobby to be against it.
What most people believe is that there was a rapidly growing number of
poor people that were not insured and were not able to get needed health
care services. It was true that there was a rapidly growing number of
uninsured, but they were not necessarily poor people. They also could get
health care by paying out of pocket for the service or going to the
emergency room. Many of these people were not poor but those who had
previously been insured by their small business employer before the health
care reform and state mandates drove the cost of health care insurance up
to the point it was no longer affordable. Government had created the
problem that put them in the position of being the solution and growing their
span of control.
What was the incentive for pushing for universal health care in the first
place? If the government could control and manage healthcare, they would
gain control over that segment of the economy.
In 2021 18.8% of the GDP was spent on healthcare amounting to a
whopping 4.3 trillion dollars or $12,914.00 per person. In 1960 it was only
5% of the GDP. By 1990 it had more than doubled to 12.1% of GDP. When
Bill Clinton took office in 1993 it was even more, and the administration saw
an opportunity to take control of that part of the economy. Part of the plan
was to change hospitalization insurance to be all inclusive and call it
healthcare insurance.
The insurance commissions of each state that control what coverage should
be included in their jurisdictions jumped on the bandwagon and enacted
mandates to define what should be included and had to be included in their
states. Within a short period of time 25 states all had different state
mandates greatly complicating writing policies in multiple states. The federal
government stepped in to write legislation that exempted large companies
from the state mandates leaving small companies that were members of
associations with no options but to go to individual coverage that would
comply with the state mandates. The premiums for this coverage were
doubling every year. I remember paying $25,000 a year per employee in the
1990s for health insurance forcing me to drop health insurance as a benefit
and leave my employees to fend for themselves for coverage. Health
insurance had become my biggest expense and I had to drop it as a benefit
for my employees or go out of business. Several of my employees opted to
go without coverage because they could not afford the premiums. They were
not poor people as the media was depicting. The result was that millions of
middle-class people became uninsured creating a health care crisis that
persists to this day. This whole mess was created by the same government
that positioned itself as the solution.
There are many stories just like this that a uniformed public end up
supporting that were created by controlling the narrative (modifying history)
to realize a result that increases the perpetrators wealth and power. Rarely
do they benefit the people that elected them in the first place. Once they are
set in motion, they gain momentum and cannot be reversed. In this case
both parties in the following administrations have only made this situation
worse. The cost of healthcare in the USA is now hovering close to 20% of
GDP. The USA now has the highest cost of healthcare of any other
industrialized nation by far. Canadas cost is about half of the USA but getting
access to healthcare when needed is an issue. Is that a tradeoff that you are
willing to live with?
The only positive outcome is that the medical business in Mexico benefits by
many people coming from the USA and Canada for medical services they can
no longer afford or get in their home countries. The element of greed is
always the motivation.
How much history is revised like this? Does it serve the greater good? Is it
justifiable? Is there anything we can do about it?
One thing we can do is not take everything that we hear in the media as
fact. Do your own research before you blindly follow what is being
presented. Frequently both sides of the issue are exaggerated or
misrepresented. Those who are trying to convince us that they have all of
the answers usually have an ulterior motive. Of course, they sound sincere
because they sincerely want and need your support. If you always start with
doubt, you will get closer to the truth, and you might be surprised at what
you will learn.
Author: Tim Eyerman