Why isn't big business for universal health

[gizmo1979]

care?It seems logical to me that universal health care would help the bottom line of all major corp.by lowering health care,and retirement funding.So why are they so quiet on the subject?Do they have too large a stake in insurance companies?I don't understand.

[sarcasmo]

1. Insurance is the key. Big big money in your Insurance policy.

[PatrioticLeftie]

2. If they have universal health care...

It means less pocket cash for them, which is unspeakable to them.

[shockingelk]

3. Not if government is the payer n/t

[gizmo1979]

10. They would have a ton

more money.The airlines couldn't cry about pensions dragging them down.GM 3000 of every car goes to health care and pension costs.It makes no sense to oppose it.

[PatrioticLeftie]

13. I see you're point but

I don't think most of these corporations think in the long term, especially when they think money could be made right then.

They would be better off with universal health care but they don't see it start to finish.

[arendt]

4. If its universal, they lose leverage over workers...

right now, no job, no insurance. That keeps the slaves
in line.

arendt

[brainshrub]

7. Exactly.

Amen.

[Horse with no Name]

14. If you have ever had to stay with a crappy job

to keep from losing your insurance....you know this is true.

[gizmo1979]

16. I know people

with a small business and one works a crappy job just for the insurance.

[arendt]

20. I know an unemployed engineer who worked at Starbuck's...

just for the insurance.

No other civilized country does it this way.
Its corporatism.

arendt

[Coastie for Truth]

24. Lapham call it fascism.

[gizmo1979]

25. Socialism maybe

but not facism.They need to get theirs ism's straight.

[0rganism]

27. ???

Are you saying corporatism is socialism rather than fascism?

Or did I misread your post?

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
(quote attributed to Benito Mussollini)

I don't see how socialism enters into this at all, except to point out how the health insurance we have via corporatism is the opposite of "socialized" systems such as... well, most of the rest of the industrialized nations.

[gizmo1979]

42. I'm saying universal healthcare

is socialism.

[tabasco]

37. I tend to agree. Control.

Desperate people are easier to control.

[mestup]

5. Big Pharma and Insurance Industries vs Every Other Industry n/t

[TahitiNut]

6. It's easier for them to off-shore jobs than oppose the insurance industry.

:shrug:

[gizmo1979]

11. They could compete in

the international arena with domestic workers if not for healthcare costs.

[datadiva]

8. Because the

healthier we are the less $ they make.

[napi21]

9. ABSOLUTELY! Insurance Co's are the reason!

Truthfully, I question why though.

If the US had National Health Care that covered basic emergencys, life threatening surgery, and clinic visits, the Ins. Co's could still have the broader policies to cover much more. They would collect less money, but their expenses would be sooo much lower I would think it would still be a good deal for them & the people who want and could afford the additional coverage.

[gizmo1979]

12. That makes sense to me

So if everyone got together and talked it over differences could probably be worked out.I just don't see the downside.

[bleedingheart]

31. actually the big insurance companies could handle the administration

of the government nationalized plan...and cover everything but optional surgeries (breast, and nose jobs...for example)

[sandnsea]

15. They'd be required to pay the taxes

They aren't required to carry health insurance. Easier for workers to be afraid of having their job outsourced and accept having health insurance dumped on to their backs, which corporate America is doing as fast as they can. Just like with 401K's instead of guaranteed pensions.

[gizmo1979]

17. All the more reason

for the need for universal healthcare.

[booley]

18. This may change

apparently GM is getting it's ass kicked ny foreign competitors in large part becuase GM can't compete with the prices..becuase those foriegn competitors are in countries with nationalized health care. meanwhile GM has to pay that itself.

big business always turns progressive when they think it wil benefit thier pocket books.

[Canadian Socialist]

19. IIRC, Honda (Toyota?)

decided to build a plant in Canada rather than the U.S. for 2 reasons.

1. Universal health care made it a helluva lot cheaper for the company.

2. The workforce (in Canada) was more educated (e.g. could read) therefore easier to train.

I don't have the time right now to look up the link but I'm pretty sure I saw it on cbc.ca in the business section a while ago.

[gizmo1979]

23. Yes I saw that also.

it was also in our UAW newsletter.Seems people in Mississippi couldn't read at a good enough level to handle the language in their training manuals.

[Canadian Socialist]

29. I found a link

re: health care. It was Toyota.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/06/30/toyota-050630.html
The relevant paragraphs are these:

Referring to the rising health-care costs faced by U.S. automakers, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty cited medicare as one reason why Ontario won out over a U.S. location.

"We've always said medicare is one of our competitive advantages – and Toyota has chosen the stability that medicare provides investors in Ontario," he said.

I'm still looking for the education/literacy component.

[Wapsie B]

21. That's encouraging.

I think big business will push through a national healthcare plan for all. When the bottom line starts to be affected enough, it'll happen.

[gizmo1979]

22. I would have thought it

might have dawned on them alittle sooner.

[susanna]

39. I read an editorial once...

where they made the observation that corporations are super-capitalist ("we are successful by our own merits") when times are good, but they are the first to start pitching for socialist policies ("we need help 'cause of unfair competition!") when things start to go downhill. That about sums it up, in my experience.

edit: sentence balancing

[Enraged_Ape]

26. I don't see big "business" being against it as much as...

big pharma, big surg, etc. These people have TONS (literally, billions) of bucks to fight the very concept of cheaper health care. They always have fought it and always will, and they will fight with every fiber of their being to squeeze every penny that they can out of the suffering of others. These companies continually pay for lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of ads and PR to turn us off to the very IDEA of state-funded health care for everyone.

Any business, big or small (particularly small), wouldn't mind cheaper health care for their employees, no matter how they get it. But there is a very well-funded minority blasting the corporate Wurlitzer 24/7 to make sure the idea is not even brought to the table.

[Jacobin]

28. Did you know that the AMA was against health insurance

way back when it started?

they freaked out and said it would lead to socialized medicine and would take away their independence in terms of treatment.

It made them all (well most) freaking millionaires.

But they were right on the independence of treatment issue in a lot of cases

[Cleita]

30. It isn't big corporations that would benefit from this but

the small businesses. Big corporations don't give all their employees good health insurance coverage and many have to pay for half of the coverage out of their wages. Only their top level employees enjoy really comprehensive health coverage. They also are in a position to barter for better rates on account of volume, which small businesses can't do.

Also, many mega corporations have insurance and health plans as part of their family of companies, so they would be the least to want non-privatization. Now with the outsourcing phenomena, many countries they outsource to have national health care already so it saves them a pile of money they would have to spend on their American employees.

[gulfcoastliberal]

32. Excellent post. I've worked @ 2 different health ins cos, lots o links:

After I graduated from college, I worked at Blue Shield of California, which is technically a not-for-profit organization - although they do make plenty of profits:
https://www.mylifepath.com/bsc/aboutbsc/aboutbsc.jhtml

Blue Cross of California, a totally separate entity (owned by Wellpoint), is a for-profit entity as are most of the BlueCross/Shield "franchises". The big plans have been in a merger mania and Anthem is now known as Wellpoint after acquiring Anthem (which owned Blue Cross California): http://ir.wellpoint.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130104&p=irol-irhome

Others like United Healthcare: http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/invest/stock.htm
have always been for-profit and my old boss at BSC told me he used to work there and they'd fire/rehire hordes of employees based on making quarterly analyst projections.

Don't forget Humana:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=92913&p=irol-IRHome

At least BSC didn't do that kind of layoff/rehire thing since they're not publicly traded. But the publicly traded companies have market caps of billions. Even Blue Shield California paid for lobbyists, and the CEO was in DC lobbying for something when 9/11 happened - I remember because he had to drive back in a rental car.

Then I worked at BlueCross/Shield of Florida in the prover credentialing dept. They are also technically not for profit although they own at least one private jet for the CEO and his deputies. They also offer life insurance and other assorted companies:

http://www.bcbsfl.com/index.cfm?section=&fuseaction=Subsidiaries.home

Kind of a ramble, but I think the bottom line is health insurance companies are making big money and have big political influence, just like other billion dollar corporations. This country is fucking over small business and some states are taking measures to help small business offer either state-subsidized private plans or even completely state-funded plans for small business' to be able to band together to offer their employees benefits. Right now employers are trying to force "consumer driven" plans, an article of which is on the business page of the Sac Bee today but I don't have an online subscription so here's the same article from sunherald.com:
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/12974512.htm

The bottom line is we need Federalized single-payer healthcare. But the real bottom line is it's all about the quick buck.It's a shame that when Bill & Hillary were crafting a very good plan, they fumbled when Hillary held secret meetings a la Cheney/energy, which added ammo for the health insurance companies, who were spending millions on ads - remember the PR firm of Goddard Claussen Porter Novelli (now just Porter/Novelli) PR ads invented by Ben Goddard featuring "Harry & Louise" "concerned" they would "lose" their doctor and choices for health plans if the federal plan came out? (BTW, Novelli is now CEO of AARP and good friends and an admirer of Newt Gingrich - splains a lot about how AARPs priorities changed big-time).

The quick buck chasers (in this case executives of health plans) also have access to tons of firms like Porter Novelli:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Business/051105_message.html

About Ben Goddard:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18417-2004Nov28.html

AMA (bunch of hypocrites) "concerned" about mega mergers of providers snip at end of article:
The AMA is concerned that the United States is heading toward a commercial health insurance system dominated by a few publicly-traded companies that operate in the interest of shareholders, and not primarily in the interest of patients. It is time for the federal antitrust enforcement agencies to reexamine their enforcement priorities which have resulted in minimal scrutiny of health insurers and aggressive pursuit of physicians.
http://www.physiciansnews.com/commentary/305.html

So, the bottom line is even though companies would save billions by lobbying for single payer national healthcare, the executives at most corporations instead are probably in cahoots with the health plans (which I've hopefully demonstrated are multiheaded hydras), thus no lobbying for the national plan. Hope some of this makes sense.

[PowerToThePeople]

33. If you live, then you get retirement benifits. n/t

[BensMom]

34. Why not

All the BS propaganda by the insurance industry.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

35. Exactly! A weird, big unexplained mystery! Potential answer -

Why wouldn't big business be the BIGGEST proponent of single payer universal health?

Well, I did just come up with one reason. Health care is often one of the ONLY things big business offers as an advantage to its otherwise pitifully underpaid and perked employees. If they lost that, then suddenly that whole entrepreneurial world of true capitalism would actually occur! there might actually be real competition in the world. Think if you weren't tied to your incredibly crappy unfullfilling job just because of the benefits package - oh my God!!

[porphyrian]

36. Insurance was the first legalized criminal institution.

Well, after murder, anyway. Too much money in insurance for anyone to let us hurt their profits.

[European Socialist]

38. The ruling classes stick together for less government and less taxes.

Somehow they got total control back in the 70's, and very little good has happened for the average person since.

[ladjf]

40. They are short term greedy to the point of profound stupidity.

[Armstead]

41. Some Businesses are for it

I can't remember where, but I saw something about a group with a lot of business bigwigs who are pushing for some form of public universal healthcare.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

43. Honestly this puzzles me as well. Basically there are 2 big facts:

1) Health benefits are a huge expense, one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, for many businesses, big and small. (Insert study showing 3,000 bux or whatever of each American car going to pay for health benefits here)

2) Tying health insurance to employment gives employers huge leverage over their employees who might otherwise fly the coop.

Honestly, I would think that the big expense would trump the "leverage" factor any day of the week, most American business is so short term and bottom line minded. I do hear rumblings sometimes that more and more major corporations are not too happy with this state of affairs though, so the times, they may be a' changin'.

[Snotcicles]

44. For Profit Health Providers have to many lobbyists on the payroll.n/t