As a discredited political figure that Republicans don't tend to exemplify, I'm not quite sure how powerful of a statement this is. Moreover, the dynamics of health care in this country have changed a lot since the '70's (and partly because of Nixon).

The article would have been better had it gone into more specifics. What’s really interesting is how certain rhetorical phrases, the connotations of which are implicitly and universally understood, become part of the American lexicon. “Socialized medicine”, for example, was coined by the healthcare industry to symbolize substandard medicine. The fact that Republican candidates use the phrase so freely indicates where their loyalties are.

Providing excellent historical context, this piece could have benefited from more print comparing Clinton's (and Obama's and Edward's) healthcare plans to Nixon's given its title. It would be nice to see an economic analysis in current dollars of the Nixon plan side by side with the plans posited by Clinton, et al. The historical significance of the support for universal healthcare by arch Republican Nixon (albeit not exactly an historical hero) and his successor, could be instructive for purposes of the healthcare debate that needs to happen now.

The significance of this article shows how even though times change the ideas stay the same. Granted Nixon was an outcast and disgrace to the republican party, he still was a republican. So the outcry's of the republicans of Clintons health care plan can go back 35 years and look at one of their own, the ideas of Clintons and Nixon's appear to be the same. So instead of calling it socialized medicine they should look back at almost the same ideas in which the republican party embraced years before. The only thing in which has changed is the party introducing it at this time. Overall this article points out the similarities of the programs. This article is informative on what was introduced then and now