--- On Thu, 6/4/09, martin <mschiller at pobox.com> wrote:
> From: martin <mschiller at pobox.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Baucus to Meet with Single-Payer Advocates
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 6:22 PM
>
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
> > In other words, people demand many things but not all
> of them pass. Only those do that the institutional
> system is amenable to. The US system is generally NOT
> amenable to universal public services.
> >
> > This was in response to Carrol's argument that we need
> more people in the streets to get universal health
> care. I do not think this alone would do the trick.
>
> Would single payer have saved GM (in your opinion)?
>
[WS:] Probably not. I think GM's problems were linked to to deeper organizational problems than just health care cost - their management thought that due to their sheer size they could bully their way through and crush anything or anyone in their way. That made them arrogant and lazy - they kept making crap thinking they could get away with it. They were wrong.
To put it anoher way - have they had enough brains and foresight to invest their future in EV1 they would probably be doing fine today, but instead their opted for short term profitability of crank out SUVs. They got their just deserts for that. So if health care cost is a factor in the GM's failure, it is probably not a decisive one.
As to the single payer - a while ago I mentioned the issue of the cost of the current (employer provided system) as an obstacle to business profitability to Dr. Vincente Navarro of JHU (he was on Clinton's health care task force). My argument was that business should support universal health care as a way of externalizing their cost. He disagreed. In his view, the capitalists did not mind bearing that cost because it accorded them control of labor.
Wojtek