Ideological reasons are one thing, but the bottom line is another. Some bearded fellow or other said that the Church of England would give up 39 of its 39 Articles of FGaith than 1/39th of its property. At some point the corps are going to have to push for some sort of national health -- probably, this country being what it is, means-tested, half-assed, sucky, but anyway one that takes some or all of the burden off their backs. It will have to be a Republican president who institutes it, though -- obviously not the current one. So, maybe his brother.
(Nixon had a half-assed national health proposal and advocated a Milton-Friedman-inspired negative income tax or guaranteed annnual income! Oh, Tricky Dick, we miss you now! Four More Years!)
As to why not so far (1) the unions didn't push for it when they had the strength to do it (which they now do not -- though it would probably help them build strength if they made a priority), and so (2) the Dems never made it a priority until Clinton, whose program was really sucky but probably about as good as we will get; (3) there is a powerful insurance lobby and industry that opposes NH, and (4) there has been no effective grassroots movement for it.
jks
--- Michael Hirsch <mmh at pipeline.com> wrote:
> >>Yup, but I suspect they would never come out for
> single-payer for
> ideological reasons.
>
> >>On my radio show this evening, I'll be
> interviewing someone from
> Greenpeace on the insurance industry's position on
> global warming.
> Though European reinsurance firms like Munich Re and
> Swiss Re are
> concerned, U.S. inscos aren't. Ideology again, it
> seems.<<
>
>
> Doug:
>
> This absense of cheap and accessible quality health
> is something that puzzles me, too. I've always
> assumed we'd get national healthcare when unions had
> the cloat to either demand it or win real private
> health insurance back, so business would look to
> shift the cost and get on board, too. It's never
> happened. Okay. But why at least some US
> corporations don't use a cost-benefit analysis in
> supporting national health is a puzzler. From the
> early 80s on, unions such as the UAW and
> Steelworkers were faced with the Hobson's choice of
> getting either raises or better benefit funding as
> health costs soared for business. If the burden of
> health care is indeed so onorous, and the unions
> developed the muscle to make health care a priority,
> why wouldn't some Iacocca or other maverick type
> come out for dumping the cost on the government. You
> say it's "ideology." Could be, though when ideology
> trumps self-interest it's the ideologue who suffers.
>
>
> Wanna say more on the "ideology" angle?
>
> Mike Hirsch
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Sent: Sep 29, 2005 11:10 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] corps & single-payer
>
> John Lacny wrote:
>
> >It's my recollection that while no major
> corporation has come out in
> >FAVOR of single-payer per se, there have been some
> transnationals
> >that have gone on record -- in the course of union
> negotiations --
> >that their costs are lower in Canada than the US,
> and that the
> >national health insurance program makes the
> difference.
>
> Yup, but I suspect they would never come out for
> single-payer for
> ideological reasons.
>
> On my radio show this evening, I'll be interviewing
> someone from
> Greenpeace on the insurance industry's position on
> global warming.
> Though European reinsurance firms like Munich Re and
> Swiss Re are
> concerned, U.S. inscos aren't. Ideology again, it
> seems.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ________________________________________
> `And these words shall then become
> Like oppression's thundered doom
> Ringing through each heart and brain,
> Heard again -- again -- again--
> `Rise like Lions after slumber
> In unvanquishable number--
> Shake your chains to earth like dew
> Which in sleep had fallen on you--
> Ye are many -- they are few.'
> --------Shelley, "The Mask of Anarchy:
> Written on the Occasion of the Massacre at
> Manchester" [1819]
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com