Degree

Bachelor of Science (B.S.)

Major(s)

Biochemistry

Document Type

Immediate Open Access

Abstract

In the summer of 1952, the International Labour Organization—an agency of the United Nations—adopted the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention. It detailed and defined the minimum acceptable standards for social security in nine different areas, including medical care, in the nations which ratified the convention. However, in order to ratify the convention, nations need only prove compliance with four of the nine areas, possibly eliminating medical care reform entirely. This provision did not prevent the American Medical Association, through its published journal, from attacking the recommendations related to healthcare as “socialized medicine.” Through these attacks, the AMA continued its pattern of opposition to centralized medical care or national health insurance. The goal of this study is to use these attacks as a case study to examine rhetoric and strategy behind opposition to expanded health coverage in the United States. Based on all relevant material published in the Journal of the American Medical Association between 1932 and 1958, this paper will analyze the tonal arc of the writings concerning the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention and dissect the AMA’s approach to oppositional persuasion and policy. This study will also examine the AMA’s opposition to “socialized medicine” through a novel lens separate from their hostility toward the Harry Truman’s Fair Deal or Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. This will provide added insight into potential attacks to expect during future attempts to reform health insurance.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.54718/HCZL9843

Date Defended

4-1-2022

Thesis Director

Peaple, Matthew

Second Committee Member

Thompson, Courtney

Third Committee Member

Elder, Anastasia

Download

Share

COinS