Why the healthcare comparison turns to postwar Britain

Would Congress react differently to a proposed 1920s healthcare and social programme than to demands for better naval ships?

The reply questions whether the proposed universal programme belongs in the 1920s and uses Britain's postwar experience instead of directly comparing congressional reactions.

The comparison with naval spending is left unanswered as the argument turns to the timing of healthcare reform. Its example is Britain's changing language of obligation after the two world wars. A "land fit for heroes" expresses promises to the First World War generation, while the later argument concerns obligations to a population that endured another mass conflict. This British analogy is used to place the proposed reform later in the counterfactual; it does not establish how Congress would respond.