Why — when health-care costs so burden small and large businesses — is not all the force of corporate lobbying power of every industry marshaled to enact a national health care plan? Wouldn’t GM be better off without having to negotiate health plans? IBM? And certainly the small businesses that the U. S. President always claims to support would benefit tremendously — as would almost everyone.
Well, except the insurance and medical industries, of course.
12 thoughts on “Just Wondering”
Those of us paying more for healthcare than rent would also benefit.
Yeah, Thunder, but for some reason I wasn’t expecting a political decision to be made on the basis of its potential benefit for regular citizens.
<tongue in cheek>
But but but that’s . . . . . socialism!
</tongue in cheek>
As they say, follow the money. Who benefits from this refusal to admit this is a failure of the marketplace?
THIS is what you want for us? No thanks!
Here’s a clue…
“Wisconsin’s tax-supported health care program for the working poor spends millions of dollars each year covering the health costs of employees of some of the state’s largest companies, such as Wal-Mart and Aurora Health Care….”
According to that article (the second, not the first),
Health care giant Aurora has 187 employees and 134 of their dependents in BadgerCare, at a total projected cost of more than $701,000 annually. Aurora’s totals represent less than 1% of the health care company’s 25,000 workers in Wisconsin.
So a health care company foists its responsibilities onto the state?
Too sad to be ironic.
Why don’t companies want rid of company paid medical coverage? Well, they can’t come right out and say it, but it’s because it keeps employees tied to the company.
Sure, they hate the costs and the negotiations, but it’s worth it to them to keep people, even though many of those people resent having to stay in a job they don’t like just to get healthcare.
The tax code has evolved specifically to induce companies to provide health insurance for their employees by making it a tax advantaged way to spend on labor.
The very fact that most health insurance is paid for by employers is rather artificial, and that extra level of remove between patients/workers and health care expenses is one large component behind the rise in prices. Insureds have little to no incentive to minimize their personal health spendings, and thus eveyone’s costs go up. Getting rid of tax incentives for health care expenditures would exert considerable force in the opposite direction.
I don’t understand at all why you would think that nationalization would reduce costs. Do you tend to spend less on something when you don’t have to pay for it directly? Do you eat less when you go to a buffet?
Have you been following any of the work of United Power for Action & Justice in Cook County with regard to health care? You will soon be able to check out their website; in the meantime, however, some of their history and actions are recorded here.
I think that this is THE political issue for the Democratic party. They don’t have the stomach for it.
The payback and ripple effect economically would be enormous.
Hmmm… Looks good. Thanks for the link, John.