[lbo-talk] corps & single-payer

[JBrown72073 at cs.com]

>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 

I'm curious whether this lack of interest in the industrial sector is driven 
by the trend towards interpenetration of financial companies with those which 
actually employ people to produce goods.  If GM, for example, is making money 
on insurance with one tentacle, it's unlikely to advocate its abolition even 
if it's costly to another tentacle.  I just haven't seen anyone break that down 
wrt health insurance companies.  

It's still true, though, that keeping the workforce disciplined (i.e. 
desperate to keep a job for health insurance) benefits all capital sectors, at least 
until we revolt.  If, by 'ideology,' you mean class interests rather than more 
narrow industry interests, I guess you could call that ideological.

Jenny Brown