As for the interests of employers in single-payer, we've already run this experiment. In the breach, in 1993 the big auto companies chose ideological allegiance to lessGov over the HillaryCare windfall (relinquishing the burden of health benefits for retirees).
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> [WS:] I am not sure if inscos are a decisive factor here - they obviously
> carry some weight but not as heavy as impossible to overcome. A single
> payer option would enrage inscos to be sure, but it may be viewed by
> employers as a huge relief of thier health care cost by shiftling it on the
> taxpayer. An that might be enough to pass it.
>
> As I see it, the problem lies not as much in the oppostion from the business
> sector but in the assinine nature of the US party system. It is the
> Democrats who killed every progressive thread in the health care reform
> without gaining a single Repug vote. That means that they could go for far
> more radical changes without losing much - and if they did not it must have
> been for other reasons than appeasing the Repugs and their business cronies.
>
> I think that both political parties are fundmentally opposed to creating any
> universal and well functioning government program, becasue that would
> undercut their role as intermediaries and deal makers between what they
> portray as ineffcient governmetn bureaurcy and their constituents.
> Polioticians on both sides of the aisle seem to create government
> ineffciency and then promise to paying constituents to alleviate it. That
> explains quite a bit about the obtuesenss of the US poltiical system - from
> the hyper complicated tax code to a bewildering array of "programs" linked
> to political figures in congress and senate. It is a political protection
> racket, if you will.
>
> I think that if the Demorepug duoploy were broken, we would get health crare
> reform along the European lines as well as many other progressive reforms,
> even in the current business climate. The main obstacle is not the
> businesman but the politician - as the process of devising the current
> health care reform plainly shows.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> If the new employer has group coverage, you'll get that, just like before.
>> If he doesn't, you can't bring your old policy with you but at least you'll
>> have access to the new menu. How good or bad it will be remains to
>> be seen, but it will provide a choice not currently available.
>>
>> The change for the better is certainly in doubt, but there seems no
>> case for a change for the worse.
>>
>> Since people will be required to buy into the new system if they lack
>> other coverage, I'd say there will be pressure to improve its inevitable
>> inadequacies, with public money if necessary. I think that's why the
>> GOP hate hate hates the prospect of the reform. It commits the
>> Gov to perfecting its vehicle for universal access to health insurance.
>>
>> The inscos don't hate it because they get a piece of the action.
>> I'll repeat a point I made before: under a welfare state, as opposed
>> to social-democracy, the state coopts providers (in this case,
>> insurance companies) into public benefits, gaining political support
>> at the cost of some quality in the result. That's the territory we
>> live in.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > RE: As things stand, the boss can always drop one plan for something
>> > cheaper, and worse, if his employees let him get away with it. What
>> > is different?
>> >
>> > [WS:] But how about his other point that you may still lose your
>> insurance
>> > when you change jobs? Many corporations have some kind of waiting period
>> > for new employees .
>> >
>> > The way I understand his argument is not that it is Obama's fault but
>> Obama
>> > is creating false hopes with his "reform" - a point that resonates with
>> me.
>> >
>> > Wojtek
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> This whole spiel never made any sense. And who the fuck is Deroy
>> >> Murdock, if not some political hack. The fear apparently is, you are
>> >> sitting there with employer provided insurance, some alternative shows
>> >> up (public option, different plan becomes available, either of which
>> >> are cheaper and crappier), and you get switched to something worse.
>> >>
>> >> The terms of your implicit deal with the boss is you get some $$$ and
>> >> some benefits. Absent some kind of explicit, legally-binding
>> >> contract, there is no more reason under ObamaCare to arbitrarily
>> >> reduce your compensation than before. If bosses want some fig leaf
>> >> they can call health insurance and cram it down their workers'
>> >> throats, they can do it now.
>> >>
>> >> As things stand, the boss can always drop one plan for something
>> >> cheaper, and worse, if his employees let him get away with it. What
>> >> is different?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Left-Wing Wacko
>> >> <leftwingwacko at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > *
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWQ4MDI5ZDU0YjAxNmM5MzEzYzc1NjM0ZDkyNDRlYWE
>> >> > =*
>> >> > **
>> >> > *Yes We Can Lose Our Health Insurance
>> >> > *Kiss your current coverage goodbye.
>> >> >
>> >> > By Deroy Murdock
>> >> ___________________________________
>> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>> >>
>> > ___________________________________
>> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>> >
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>