Talk:Presidency of Richard Nixon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citation cleanup needed

The editor who copied this article from Richard Nixon did not copy in or correct the citations. I have given it a start, but there are still citation errors that need to be dealt with. That's all the time I have to work on this article; because it is large and slow-loading, someone else will need to finish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

National health insurance

I revised the national health insurance paragraph in the "Governmental initiatives and organization" subsection of the "Domestic policy" section from:

In 1971, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts proposed a plan for universal federally run health insurance, partly motivated by dramatic rises in public and private health care expenditures. In response, Nixon proposed a health care plan which would provide insurance for low-income families, and require that all employees be provided with health care. As this still would have left some forty million people uncovered, Kennedy and the other Democrats declined to support it, and the measure failed, though a Nixon proposal for increased use of health maintenance organizations passed Congress in 1973.

to:

In August 1970, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced a bipartisan bill for universal national health insurance. In February 1971, Nixon proposed more limited health insurance reform—a private health insurance employer mandate, federalization of Medicaid for poor families with dependent minor children, and support for health maintenance organizations (HMOs). House and Senate hearings on national health insurance were held in 1971, but no bill had the support of House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committee chairmen Rep. Wilbur Mills (D-AR) and Sen. Russell Long (D-LA). A limited HMO bill was enacted in December 1973.

In October 1973, Sen. Long and Sen. Abraham Ribicoff (D-CT) introduced a bipartisan bill for catastrophic health insurance coverage for workers and federalization of Medicaid with extension to the poor without dependent minor children. In February 1974, Nixon proposed more comprehensive health insurance reform—a private health insurance employer mandate and replacement of Medicaid by state-run health insurance plans available to all, with income-based premiums and cost sharing. In April 1974, Sen. Kennedy and Rep. Mills introduced a bill for near-universal national health insurance with benefits identical to the expanded Nixon plan. In August 1974, after Nixon's resignation and President Ford's call for health insurance reform, Rep. Mills tried to advance a compromise based on Nixon's plan, but gave up when the conservative half of his committee instead backed the AMA's limited "Medicredit" voluntary tax credit plan.

and changed the sourcing from the incomplete and inaccurate:

• Patel, Kant; Rushefsky, Mark E. (2006). "PSROs and HMOs" in Health Care Politics And Policy in America, 3rd ed. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 0-7656-1478-2, pp. 47-48.
  

to:

• articles from the Congressional Quarterly Almanac during the Nixon presidency
  
• Wainess, Flint J. (April 1999). "The Ways and Means of National Health Care Reform, 1974 and Beyond".Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 24 (2): 305–333. ISSN 0361-6878.
  

Apatens (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead bias

The Nixon presidency also saw the creation of the EPA, integration of Southern public schools, and the Apollo program successfully land Americans on the Moon during Nixon's presidency. Nixon's accomplishments were largely overshadowed by the scandals of the administration, and both Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew stepped down from office during Nixon's second term.

Isn't it a bit odd to credit Nixon for things he barely had any part in (such as Apollo) while waving off all his scandals, including corruption, the bombing of Cambodia, him wanting to kill journalists and secretly aiding dictators, as "scandals of the administration" that "overshadowed" his "accomplishments"? It's as if the person who wrote it believes Nixon is portrayed too negatively. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I wrote the lead. When I read "overshadowed" I don't read that as implying that his accomplishments (and I would certainly argue he had a few) were wrongly overshadowed. I would argue that his accomplishments were, well, rightly overshadowed. Maybe there's a better word to use than "overshadowed," but I think that the lead I wrote does a reasonably good job of summarizing the actual content of the article. Orser67 (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Healthcare

I restored the citations removed on April 29, 2015 and restored and revised the content removed on June 28, 2017.

I removed the following sources because the inaccurate, contentious claims they make (that health care reform in 1974 was killed by organized labor) are not supported by the Congressional Quarterly articles they cite:

• Mayes, Rick (2004). Universal Coverage: The Elusive Quest for National Health Insurance, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, ISBN 0-472-11457-3, pp. 88–97.
• Hall, Kevin G. (November 28, 2007). "Democrats' health plans echo Nixon's failed GOP proposal". McClatchy DC Bureau.

and removed the following inaccurate opinion piece:

• Stockman, Farah (June 23, 2012). "Recalling the Nixon-Kennedy health plan". The Boston Globe.

In 1974, of the "7 major health insurance programs considered in 1974" (CQ Almanac 1974, pp. 388–389), the Nixon administration bill, Kennedy–Mills bill, and Long–Ribicoff bill were the only three that were thought to be possibly passable in some form. The labor-backed Griffiths–Corman bill, the American Medical Association's "Medicredit" bill, the National Health Insurance Association of America's bill, and the American Hospital Association's bill were not seriously considered. The sponsors and co-sponsors of the labor-backed bill on the Ways and Means Committee (Griffiths, Corman, Vanik, and Green) all voted for Mills' August 1974 compromise plan.

"Mark-Up Begun, Canceled". (CQ Almanac 1974, pp. 390–391):

[On Aug. 21] Mills called a halt. He was not, Mills said, going to the floor with any bill approved by a 13–12 margin.
Most committee members agreed that the committee could not reach tentative agreement before the [12–day Labor Day] recess [scheduled to begin Aug. 22]. "This is not the proper environment in which to formulate a bill of this importance," said [ranking Republican] Herman T. Scheebeli (R Pa.) [one of three Republican committee members who voted for Mills' compromise].
But Martha W. Griffiths (D. Mich.) and James C. Corman (D. Calif.), sponsors of the most comprehensive pending proposal backed by organized labor, suggested the committee should move ahead. Both said they were willing to accept a reasonable compromise. "The President asked for a bill," Griffiths said. "I'm for giving him a bill."
During the continuing discussion of what to do next—which Collier [R. Ill., who voted for Mills' compromise] dubbed a legislative wake—several members suggested the committee should act on a catastrophic bill only. Mills, however, said he was "unalterably opposed" to a "piecemeal" approach.
Mills pointed out that the 12 members wedded to the AMA plan held the key to any future compromise. Because seven of the 12 were Republicans, it could be up to Ford to swing their votes behind any new compromise.
. . .
The stalemate effectively killed chances for final congressional action on health insurance in 1974 unless Congress decided to reconvene after the November general election.
When Congress did decide to reconvene for a lame-duck session, the administration called again for enactment of a health insurance plan. The Democratic leadership tentatively put it on the schedule for the post-election Congress.
But by the time Congress reconvened, it was clear that health insurance would not be one of the issues considered in the short time left in the 93rd Congress. HEW Secretary Weinberger Nov. 14 admitted that such a program although "inevitable", was not "likely in this session."

Apatens (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I have restored some of what you deleted, as the sources cited are reliable. Drdpw (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The Cabinet

Out of curiosity, is there any rational reason for the bizarre ordering of the cabinet members by year? Could that be some form of vandalism? 65.68.190.182 (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The ordering of offices and personnel looks fine to me; please be more specific about what problems you see. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)