>As for the absence of healthcare being itself a useful tool in keeping
>the workforce disciplined, are you assuming that they (we) would be
undisciplined
>with the introduction of guaranteed access to family healthcare?
We'd be freer to change jobs, go on strike, punch the boss, yeah.
>If you are, that's inputing a lot of control to one set of bad policies. I'm
>old enough to remember when employers were happy to provide a comprehensive
>package of benefits; it was cheaper than a big wage raise. And the workforce
>in my long-ago youth was certainly disciplined. Hell, they were job scared,
>then and now. Fear as an instrument of social control takes many forms;
>raising a family while one illness away from bankruptcy is just one of
>them.
I don't think the question is "is labor disciplined or isn't it?" it's HOW disciplined, i.e. how scared are we to lose our job? Will we do two people's jobs? work more overtime? how about for no pay? And take another pay cut? If you have a sick child or spouse then probably the answer is you'll do pretty much anything to keep your job. And as the proportion of jobs that have health insurance decreases, we become even more shackled to those which have it, which is an advantage those employers gain over us when they want us to be "flexible."
I disagree that the US labor force was always this "disciplined." In the 70's it was famously slack, uninterested in pleasing the employer, and strike-prone. It was a golden age by comparison.
Employers won't give a little to keep a lot if they don't have to give anything. GM would much rather not pay health benefits at all than pay its health benefits in the form of taxes. (And exactly when were employers happy to provide a comprehensive package of benefits? They were forced into it by unions and tight job markets.)
>Capitalism won't collapse if the US inaugurates universal health
>care, though the fight for it can buff up its enemies--especially if those
>business sectors with no stakes in the present private insurance racket
>continue to take a pass.
Insurance is a very profitable sector. Capitalism won't collapse, as you say (plenty of capitalist countries have national health systems) but a large segment of US financial interests would no longer have a product to sell. Let's not underestimate how hard they'll hold on to the current system. I tend to think that until we have some spectacular bankruptcies in that sector the opposition will remain formidable. The good news is, we probably won't have to wait too long.
Jenny Brown