#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.
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