Capitalists for Hillarycare

[Snellius]

Look who's supporting universal health care no

The American health care system, a patchwork of government-provided benefits overlaid on a voluntary system of private-sector coverage, is a case study in economic inefficiency. Companies that provide health care to employees put themselves at a disadvantage to competitors—domestic and foreign—that don't. And because uninsured people frequently receive care—from the government or hospitals—those who pay for health care are essentially subsidizing those who don't.

In the early 1990s, big business largely opposed Hillary Clinton's ill-conceived effort to establish a government-run universal health insurance plan. But over the past several years—and especially in the past year—large corporations, and the trade groups that speak for them, have been subtly changing their tune.
...
That interest in more government health care is spreading from automakers to other manufacturers. In December, a study released by two business establishment trade groups, the Manufacturers Alliance and the National Association of Manufacturers, found that when it came to structural costs—environmental compliance, taxes, and employee benefits—American companies pay more compared to many foreign competitors. Structural costs add 22.4 percent to the price of doing business in the United States—more than in Canada, Britain, or South Korea. The largest single structural cost borne by the American private sector is health care. The clear implication: Unless society (read: the government) does something to relieve manufacturers of their health-care burden, the sector will suffer further.

The health-reform meme is now colonizing another group of Fortune 500 companies—major hospital chains. This week, HCA, the nation's largest hospital company, unexpectedly lowered earnings estimates for the year by about 10 percent. The main reason: It had to set aside extra cash to deal with swelling numbers of uninsured patients who can't pay their bills. In the first quarter, HCA had to set aside 11.7 percent of its revenues of $5.9 billion for bad debts, up from 8.1 percent the year before. (Here's the report.)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2099036/

[The Zanti Regent]

1. awwww, the Fri$t Family H¢A revenue$ down?

Too bad for $eantor Fri$t and his ¢rooked family!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. Just more red meat...

For the front page of the site that I am the webmaster of:

http://warrenctydems.com

Hosted by our own bpilgrim. One hell of a guy.

Thanks for the link. I don't know what I would do for content, without this place.

[prodigal_green]

3. I got called a crypto-fascist

a couple of months ago on this board for saying exactly the same thing.

Take a look at recent labor disputes--what is the number one issue? Healthcare.

[swinney]

4. Universal Health Care or or or

America will continue to be a rogue nation.

[TexasBushwhacker]

5. I've never understood ...

...why this was such a controversial issue. They set up the Social Security system because everyone gets old someday (hopefully) and there should be some kind of safety net for those who cannot work because of age or disability.

Well, everyone gets sick sometimes. Why shouldn't we all contribute to a basic nationalized healthcare system? How is having the uninsured working poor wait for hours in emergency rooms to get treatment, which ends up getting paid for by tax payers through the public health system or by costs getting rolled over to those of us that have insurance (the haves paying for the have nots) a better system? It's incredibly inefficient and ultimately more costly.

[fencesitter]

6. Who's they?

It wasn't the republicans who set up the ss system, and a health care system just screams "welfare state". But otherwise yes, I've never understood it either. I pray it won't be long for Hillarycare and as more corporations have to cover the costs and can no longer keep passing increases along to employees, it can become a reality.