-
Conclusion
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
It is a commonplace that World War II influenced society, the economy, and the politics of war participants. However, scholars tend to deal with the war as a black box, reluctant to theorize seriously about how, when, and to what degree the war affected these aspects of life. This book contributes to this broad question by focusing on the area of health insurance. Before World War II, Japan and the United States were alike in that they had limited health insurance coverage. The war had a large impact on health insurance in both countries. Japan and the United States increased their health insurance coverage during World War II, and each consolidated its own health insurance system during the postwar reconstruction. Japan and the United States, however, adopted different health insurance systems during the stormy period of war and postwar reconstruction. To understand the development of health insurance during the war and the postwar period, political scientists have paid more attention to the political structure, interest group politics, political culture, and preexisting policies. Of course the influence of these things cannot totally be denied. But this book has showntheothersideofthestory.WorldWarIIchanged—created,abolished,and redefined—political institutions, interest groups, political culture, and policy as much as, if not far more than, the other way around. Furthermore, how the waradvancedandhowthewarendedmustbetakenintoaccount. The Japan-U.S. comparison demonstrates not only that World War II boosted health insurance coverage but also that the kind of health insurance systemadopteddependedoneachcountry’swarexperience.Ifthegovernment Conclusion 134 war and health insurance policy in japan and the united states projected a rapid increase of mobilization and was not sure how long the war would last, the more that government preferred radical reform. The longer and deeper war mobilization became, the more power the government had at its disposal to realize its policy preferences. The timing of the rapid mobilization increase also affected what kind of policy the government could produce. If a long period of shallow mobilization preceded a rapid mobilization increase, the government had an easier time achieving radical reform. As for the impact of the war on the postwar period, the more devastation a country suffered by the end of the war, the more likely it was that the government could justify its interventions in health insurance to ease postwar turmoil . Whether a country won or lost the war, furthermore, influenced the postwar health insurance politics in Japan and the United States in two ways. First, in the victorious United States, the American Medical Association could regain its political power by praising its contribution to the country’s victory. The Japan Medical Association, by contrast, was blamed for its part in the war activities. Second, the lost war brought the U.S.-led military occupation to Japan . No legislative activity could be performed without the approval of the occupation authority. Furthermore, the military occupation provided a channel fortheAmericandomesticpoliticalbattleoverhealthinsurancetocomeacross the Pacific Ocean to affect the health insurance reform in Japan. The findings from the cases of Japan and the United States await expansion to the other war participants. By treating World War II as a black box but rather by recognizing the existence of different wars and different postwar reconstructionsfordi fferentcountries,weshouldgainanewlenstointerpretthedevelopmentofhealthinsuranceintheothercountries .Thenwecanhaveabetter understanding of how, when, and how much World War II affected health insurance. This project should promote new inquiries about how World War II influenced other social policies, such as cash assistance to the poor, old-age pensions , and unemployment policy. Based on the findings in thisbook,it would be naturaltospeculatethatthewarhadadifferent impactonthese policies thanit did on health insurance. The war caused an economic boom, reduced poverty and unemployment, and mobilized the elderly and women into the workforce. Therefore, these policies have a less direct connection to the government’s war activities than to health care policy. However, the former would gain more attention from the government to reconstruct the nation than the latter. World WarIImobilizedanunprecedentednumberofpeopleinmanycountries.When thesoldiersreturned,themosturgentissueforthegovernmentwastheincrease [107.21.176.63] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 09:19 GMT) conclusion 135 of unemployment and poverty. In such circumstances, health insurance might be a less important issue for the government than raising employment levels. Countries’differentwarexperiences,moreover,mightresultindifferentpolicy outcomes. Lastly,thisbookoffersanormativeimplication.Healthcarepolicyshouldbe considered a double-edged sword. The government can use health care policy notonlytoofferitspeopleabettersafetynetbutalsotocontroltheirbodiesand make them ready to fight in wars and kill others. Whenever the government talks about our health, we have to consider, “Health for whom and...