In Sickness and in Health, In Good Times and in Bad: A Comparative Analysis of the Ideologies Governing Health Care Reform in Canada and the United States, 1962--1974
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the ideology of health care reform in Canada and the United States from 1962 to 1974. During that time, Canada enacted Medicare, which provided a universal physician services program designed by the provinces and supported financially by the federal government. Rejecting a private-sector approach and Quebec's desire for complete autonomy in the program design, the joint federal-provincial program supported the Canadian values of government responsibility for health care (paternal statism) and the belief that Canadians have a responsibility to care for each other (collectivism).;From 1970 to 1974, the U.S. Congress failed to enact any national health insurance (NHI) program, even though NHI had the support of two presidents, Congress, and a large variety of organizations. Key ideological differences that explain the failure of the U.S. to enact an NHI program arose during controversies about maintaining the pluralistic system versus creating a federally run program, upholding the individual choice to participate versus mandating participation (individualism), and guaranteeing the right to access health care versus the inherent right to health care. These differences were impossible to overcome, and they remain at the heart of current debates about the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordability Act of 2010, including challenges regarding its constitutionality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".