Health care reform

Human beings have two apparently conflicting fundamental rights. On the one hand, individuals have a right to health care as the United Nations declared in 1948. On the other hand, individuals have a right to liberty; that is, the freedom to make one's own health related choices, even poor ones. One goal of this essay is to show how to reconcile these two apparently conflicting core American values. This reconciliation is important, because a universal health care system that is fair and just must account for individual rights in tandem with attempts to address matters of social justice. In order for this reconciliation to occur, matters of individual responsibility, social responsibility, and social justice must be central to health care reform.

My study focuses on oscillating political context to find what factors are conducive to the proposal and ultimate success of executive-generated, liberal health care policy. When it comes to initiating policy change, most of the existing literature concentrates on individuals in Congress or local level politicians. Beginning with the advent of the so-called "Modern Presidency" during the early years of the twentieth century, the President has increasingly played an active role in government, particularly with respect to legislation--he can be considered a "policy entrepreneur." I use data on variables from 1959 to 2004 and employ the Two-Stage Conditional Maximum Likelihood Model. I find that a more liberal President is likely to propose health care legislation that necessitates increased government involvement. I also determine that Congress is more likely to approve a liberal Presidential proposal when the government is unified and public opinion polls indicate people are more receptive to government intervention.