> Marv Gandall wrote:
>
>> But doesn't the US bourgeoisie itself have an interest in containing the
>> cost of healthcare - running well above that of single payer systems,
>> attributable to private control of US healthcare?
>
> Absolutely. But that's like saying a worker who needs a job "has an
> interest in" scabbing. It depends on how you look at it. GM would have
> lower labor costs with single payer, but it would have been complicit in
> the murder of an entire industry. Those are its comrades...
I don't think it's reducible to the interests of the auto or other industries which have high current and legacy health care costs versus the rest of the capitalist class which solidarizes with a perceived threat to the public healthcare sector. The auto and other firms have in any event already used the weakened unions, the state and the bankruptcy courts to substantially reduce their costs, and could continue to do so. Like the mafia, corporate America could care less if one of their own is "murdered", particularly if it's the one costing them money.
In this case, the bourgeosie as a whole has a general interest in cost-containment because private health care diverts resources, impedes labour mobility, and threatens higher taxes and interest rates down the road. I wouldn't expect the corporations to be encouraging state intervention to satisfy the public appetite for reform, and it is in their immediate interest to criticize anything put on the table to shape it more to their needs. But at the end of the day I suspect they recognize some kind of public plan is necessary, and are prepared to live with it.