[lbo-talk] Left aiding right

[Michael McIntyre]

This may be one of those Poulantzian cases where the interests of
Capital do not match the interests of capitalists.  Insofar as
employers are able to shift the cost of medical care onto workers, and
the overhead costs of private insurance, inflation in medical costs,
and the obscene prices charged by pharma make workers "choose" to
forego care, the overall productivity of workers can be expected to
decline, at least relative to that of workers in other capitalist
countries with sane systems of medical care.  Capitalists, unable to
overcome the collective action problem needed to safeguard the
interests of Capital, need the State to step in and act on Capital's
behalf.  (Think Marx on the Ten Hours Bill if Poulantzas isn't your
cup of tea).  But . . . the State evidently isn't up to the task,
which is why this issue, even more than EFCA or bank regulation could
provide us with our strongest lever.

MM

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Jenny Brown <jbrown72073 at cs.com> wrote:
> Bhaskar Sunkara
>>
>> Single-payer health care is in the interest of "*big" *capital.
>
> Well, let's start with the insurance companies themselves.  Those aren't big
> capital?  And what about the banks they consort with in a web of mutual
> reliance?  And then there's pharma, which would suddenly have to negotiate
> prices rather than writing its own inflated ticket.  Then there's the class
> war point Doug makes, the weapon that health care--and the threat of its
> loss--constitutes in every workplace that still provides it, to keep workers
> in line, to avoid organizing and strikes, and generally to make workers
> dependent on their jobs for not just their livelihoods but in some cases
> their lives.
>
> Setting aside their general class interests, the only 'big' capital
> interests that might see some payoff are manufacturers with strong unions
> which have been able to force the cost burden onto the employer.  See a
> whole lot of those around these days?
>
> In fact, I'd say that single-payer would be a more general injury to the
> interests of big capital overall than financial re-regulation would, since
> re-regulation really only curtails the range of motion of one sector, and
> might help others.
>
> Jenny Brown
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>