Regardless of the future shape of health care, Clinton recognized, targeting children and encouraging good health early on would ultimately save the system money. The social foundation of America, regardless of political trends, provides for those in need; by insuring early childhood health, covering costly treatments for developed diseases later in life would be significantly decreased.

             While the plan experienced immediate support, the groups involved would soon crow in disagreement with the administration, and the plan would meet certain doom within a year. An already politically splintered political community in Washington stalled the early vitality of the bill, which A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times had pronounced a success.4 However, what brought its downfall was not political disagreement, but timing and labels. Paul Starr attributed the fall of the program to "too much, too fast," made worse by the addendum of names and stereotypes in the political popularity contest of D.C. .

             Leaders from all sides – left, right, lobby, business – came to the issue of health care reform with resolve. The failings of the system were self-evident, exposed, and costly. While Clinton and the left-wing pushed for immediate universal coverage, Republicans wanted to fix the system with a "mandate," requiring all Americans to buy into health insurance.5 The American Medical Association and the Health Insurance Association of America, "the two great, historic bastions of opposition to compulsory health insurance,"6 sided with the politicians for an employer mandate and universal coverage. Other groups on the left encouraged single-payer programs while others on right encouraged medical savings accounts and managed competition. The system was ripe for change, and everyone was eager to contribute; the Clinton administration had the possibility to create a solid, successful system, but instead, fell prey to the greatest enemy of government – politics.