Skip to main content

Universal Health Care Might Cost You Less Than You Think

#1

The facts behind this idea are persuasive, but the biggest resistance will come from business interests determined to destroy the possibility, medical device manufacturers, pharmaceuticals, insurers, hospitals, and the AMA. Then there is the distrust of government held by many, sown by the same business interests. Although overall costs would be lowered, conservative media would gladly push 'testimonials', created and supported by industry groups, attesting to the increased costs on middle Americans. It is possible that most Americans would be for universal health care (UHC?) in some form, but there will be a barrage of propaganda, along with historically business-tilted laws and courts, that would make this a tough proposition.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/opinion/medicare-for-all-cost.html#commentsContainer&permid=100227199

#2

Although costs to business would be reduced from health care, and from the HR costs of managing benefits, businesses would lose the leash that ties many to their jobs. Americans would be free to leave employers to find better companies irrespective of insurance, not stuck with bad employers. Sounds like a win for employees, but it would change the degree of control that business has over employees. This would be good for us, but there might be some disgruntled employers as turnover increased.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/opinion/medicare-for-all-cost.html#commentsContainer&permid=100227251

#3

@Karekin - Debatable win-win, since although costs might decrease, many industries would see increased turnover, and that is expensive. No longer tied to an employer, many will leave for better environments, and companies might then need to do more to retain employees, maybe even including enhanced medical services beyond UHC. Additionally, the higher income people would pay more in taxes, and that tied with their freedom to move might push up wages. Just some thoughts...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/opinion/medicare-for-all-cost.html#commentsContainer&permid=100227137%3A100227290

#4

@EWood - I assume you are not responding to what I wrote unless you misread it, but you can see that the response from others is that it will cost business. My posts in this forum have been about the political realities, so although I strongly profess advancing human welfare, and argue against the culture of work, it would be foolish to not consider the hurdles and roadblocks hindering a better society.

#5

@Bethannm - Capitalism isn't about competition, and never has been. I best remember that capitalism is about rewarding the owners of capital, nothing more. It is the essence of our plutocracy. Market systems, at least in theory, are about competition and/or the lack of it. Just my view...

Honest, I'd like a better world, free from corporate and plutocratic control, focused on human welfare, but I was looking at the complexities down the road. There are many self-interested groups, and some backlash will come from corporations themselves. I am not advocating an employment 'tether'.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/opinion/medicare-for-all-cost.html#commentsContainer&permid=100227415%3A100227707

#6

@EWood - Obviously, I am not advocating for serfdom, since I stated that this "would be good for us, but there might be some disgruntled employers as turnover increased." On the other hand, one just has to look at our system of employment to realize that the US promotes a modern-day indenture, and is titled toward employers over employees. Again, not justifying it, but it is naive to not consider the potential blockers. Also, it is naive to not realize that many serfs are indoctrinated in their serfdom.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Meanings of Ender's Game

In response to an Ender's Game discussion (Goodreads), with a link from Reddit, I posted the following: Much of the Reddit stream seems to focus on military tactics, or the lack thereof, used by the Ender, but who reads Ender and thinks it about military tactics, except the 20-year old grunt that started the thread? For a book written in the 80's, then edited in the early 90's, it seems more prophetic, with its use of game immersion, remote military operations and portable computing. Then when you think about the use of children in military games, one can think somewhat more deeply about sociopolitical indoctrination.  The series itself becomes a broader exploration of empathy and foreign culture.  The criticism seems more like the problem of a man with a hammer, who thinks every problem is solved by hammering, but even worse, every problem is about hammering. An additional post, regarding suspension of disbelief: Some people commented on the suspension of disbelie...

Accomplishments of Mayor de Blasio (as of December 2014)

I realized that de Blasio's accomplishments go unnoticed, primarily because affluent white people do not benefit from them. The benefits the mayor has brought are often corrections to the abuses of Bloomberg's, along with prior mayors', policies: Policing The NYPD conducts fewer stop-and-frisks. The city dropped its stop-and-frisk appeal. NYPD officers are starting to use body cameras. New York police officers are being retrained. Carrying a small amount of weed will probably result in a ticket, not an arrest. Teenage inmates are no longer put in solitary confinement at Rikers Island. The city has settled with the “Central Park Five.” Poverty There are 23 new homeless shelters in the city There's a new rent subsidy program for homeless families. More public housing units are available to homeless families. Traffic Pedestrian deaths are at a record low. The speed limit was lowered from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour. There are harsher ...

The Right to Write - NYTimes.com

In an article,  The Right to Write - NYTimes.com , I commented on the right to write, since writers are sometimes questioned on the validity of their writing, e.g., Harriet Beecher Stowe with Uncle Tom's Cabin: One, people always have the right to write, but readers concurrently have the right to reject said writing. Much personal criticism of depictions from writers is whether the depiction seems valid or plausible, but even that is an exercise in empathy, since it requires one to experience that depiction ideationally.  Two, there is a streak in Americans, and maybe anyone, that states that you cannot understand 'my pain', usually the death of a child or some horrific personal lose. Over a longer term I have sensed that people most easily accept empathy if it is expressed by someone with similar experiences, an aspect I believe is part of human nature. I find both irksome, since they deny empathy.