General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow a sentimental British painting thwarted universal healthcare in the United States
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2960915-0/fulltext?rss=yesFrom the perspective of a historically informed American eye, however, the choice was staggeringly ironic. For The Doctor had a pivotal role in blocking the creation of a counterpart to the NHS in the USA. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, it was under a banner graced with this image that the American Medical Association (AMA) successfully led the battle against universal government health insurance. Widely circulated during the early Cold War, the image became a lightning rod for clashing conceptions of the medical profession as an American institution, the doctor-patient relationship, and the ways that access to health care should define the nation.
Fildes' painting was commissioned by Henry Tate and first exhibited in 1891 at the Royal Academy in London. In the USA engravings quickly appeared in doctors' waiting rooms; it was recreated in tableaux vivant, and, in 1911, was the subject of a film by Thomas Edison. At the 1933 Chicago World's Fair, Petrolagar Laboratories exhibited a life-size diorama of the scene, celebrating the ideal relationship between physician and patientThe Human Touch; the exhibit then went on tour and was viewed by at least 5 million people. During the Depression, the painting appeared widely in popular media lamenting the passing of the family doctor.
Between 1943 and 1950, a series of national health insurance bills were debated in the US Congress. In 1947, The Doctor appeared on a postage stamp commemorating the AMA's centenary. And AMA activists went on to deploy the painting as emblematic of all that would be lost if the state were to impose what they called socialised medicine, and, in the same breath, fascist health care. The Doctor appeared in pamphlets, print advertisements, and, at medical conventions, on gigantic banners, all with the slogan, Keep politics out of this picture.
Much better, of course, to get profits in the picture. That painting today would need to show a bunch of bean counters, shareholders, stakeholders, claims evaluators, risk evaluators, and so on standing between the doctor and the patient, and hanging over the father's shoulder. Thank goodness for that.
ETA: First saw the story here: http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2013/05/how-british-painting-helped-thwart-universal-health-care-us
LeftinOH
(5,359 posts)even have a proper bed to rest in. The parent(s) will have to pay the doctor in cash on the spot; or.. if the doctor is kind enough, allow them to pay in installments.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)magellan
(13,257 posts)The politics of for-profits spending larges sums of money to trump the will of the people. As usual.
The AMA wasn't the only organization bent on thwarting national health care back then. So was the American Hospitals Association...and the Chamber of Commerce.
Addison
(299 posts)The family pictured in the painting most certainly wouldn't have had "voluntary health insurance" or any health insurance at all. And "Keep Politics out of this Picture" is such Orwellian doublespeak.
Just goes to show that greed and contempt for the poor exists in every generation.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts). . . . . if you're a multi-millionaire with tons of liquid cash on hand, that is.
But hey, keep buying the same old "Cold War" Red-bait CRAP, Dumberica, as you willingly drown in medical bankruptcies for the crime of getting sick.
I'll bet there's going to be SOME nation out there who'll wise up and switch from their "CommieCare" to our "Best Helth Care In Thuh WORLD!" any day now; I can just FEEL it!