Skocpol T
Harvard University.
J Health Polit Policy Law. 1993 Fall;18(3 Pt 2):531-50. doi: 10.1215/03616878-18-3-531.
Reformers feel certain that the time is now ripe for progressive legislation to ensure universal citizen access to health insurance and to contain rising costs in the health care industry. But history shows us that reformers were equally confident in earlier periods of modern U.S. history, only to find themselves defeated by conservatives willing to deploy ideological, emotionally charged arguments against government-sponsored reforms. Today's advocates of inside-the-beltway bargains for hammering out compromise reforms may be vulnerable to similar conservative counterattacks. Reformers need to engage the U.S. citizenry as a whole in democratic discussion about the ideals of government-sponsored health care reforms. Advocates of single-payer plans can do this more readily than supporters of complex public-private schemes such as play or pay or managed competition, but all those who want inclusive and effective reforms during the 1990s must face the challenge of democratic dialogue.
改革者坚信,现在是时候制定进步性立法,以确保全体公民都能获得医疗保险,并控制医疗保健行业不断上涨的成本了。但历史告诉我们,在美国现代历史的早期,改革者也同样充满信心,结果却发现自己被那些愿意运用意识形态、充满情绪化的论点来反对政府资助改革的保守派击败。如今,那些主张在华盛顿内部进行讨价还价以敲定折衷改革方案的倡导者,可能容易受到类似的保守派反击。改革者需要让全体美国公民参与到关于政府资助医疗改革理想的民主讨论中来。单一支付计划的倡导者比诸如“玩或付”或管理式竞争等复杂的公私合营计划的支持者更能轻松做到这一点,但所有那些希望在20世纪90年代进行包容性和有效改革的人都必须面对民主对话的挑战。