Care to discuss why businesses give health care benefits as opposed

[merbex]

to the way Europe handles healthcare?

I went to candidates night in MA where I got to meet Deval Patrick who is one of 2 running for MA gov as a Dem. He was asked a question about health care and he said (paraphrasing)"I'm not quite there yet on universal single payer health care - but I'm close" OK, I've heard that before but then he went on and said that the sysytem we have now is because essentially at the end of WWII the industrial nations had decisions to make about health care and the US went the route of going through businesses to get coverage and Europe made a different decision as we know

And that while 50-60 years ago the US decision might have made sense when people stayed with a corporation their whole working life now we are in transition and the sysytem doesn't work anymore

And that we need a debate about this

Is there a 3rd way?

I don't think so; there is the way European nations deal with health care and then there is us.

So that's what I'm asking: why debate anymore?our health care system is broken, everyone hates it, and we know that other countries get just as good health care as we do, why can't we just get what other countries have?

My rant for the day

[dbonds]

1. This way health care makes people rich.

But as to the argument that makes for a better healthcare system I call Bullshit. I have had a recent stay in the hospital here and one in a socialist country, and ours is like a 3rd world hospital in comparison.

[merbex]

3. only a few people

and the rest get shoddy service and massive paperwork headaches

[endarkenment]

2. Corruption, greed, and corruption.

Oh and greed. And corruption.

The only possible reasons why we have the shitiest most expensive healthcare system of all of the modern industrial democracies.

[rodeodance]

4. Tammy Baldwin said we tend to privilege our capitalist mode of doing

things--she was talking of health care lately. Dem, WI.

[TahitiNut]

5. Businesses adopt "anti-cannibalization" policies in many ways.

First and foremost, today's capitalists only regard a person's health to be important if they're rich or if they're helping make someone richer ... i.e. labor. Runaway slaves don't get health care.

Next, health care was (for most of the last 50 years) not transportable for dependents with "pre-existing conditions." The parent or spouse of a diabetic, Downs Syndrome child, etc. was locked into a job where the health care covered those expenses. (Today, their jobs are even more jeopardized than most.)

If people fear losing their health care, they're more "manageable," more tolerant of low pay, and less likely to go work for a competitor.

Remember ... all forms of human misery are seen as an opportunity to profit by today's exploiters.

[lyonn]

7. Too bad so many of us didn't realise what Hillary

was trying to do with the health care system when Clinton was pres.. To this day I don't know as it wasn't given voice in the media other than "that damn Hillary is trying to be president too." But Clinton knew our health care system was a mess and needed fixing. Our economy was in such shambles after the Reagan/Bush era that they spent most their energy on that problem. Imagine all the people that do not even get basic preventative care because of the cost. If you don't have cash in hand at the doctor's office or insurance they won't see you.

Now we have this ridiculous prescription plan that even the professionals don't know what to do with it. I'm still waiting for this admin. to crash and burn and it think it's getting close.

Gingrich is now on C-Span2 explaining economy, etc. He is trying to get his smelly foot in the political door again. There is no doubt he feels superior to even those in his party and can Fix medicare, all social programs, etc. What a guy!

[papau]

6. provide healthcare for all citizens, based on need, not the ability to pay

The National Health Service or NHS as it is more commonly known, was set up on the 5th July 1948 to provide healthcare for all citizens, based on need, not the ability to pay.

And the way the US chose was what again?

[Sgent]

8. There are a few reasons

1) During WWII there were wage controls put into place by the government. Comapanies started offering health benefits in lieu of increased wages to attract employees.

2) Health coverage must be written in large groups. Individual insurance markets are particularly bad becuase (with exceptions such as smoking) individuals can't make choices re/ their health.

3) Historically, health insurance was 100% deductible for companies -- meaning neither the company nor the employee had to pay taxes on the benefits. Thus a $3000/yr benefit only costed the company $1800, and created no taxes for the employee. The employee to buy the coverage individually, would have to earn $4,500 because they had to pay taxes. This has started to change, but due to AMT and other issues, its not there yet.

[Gormy Cuss]

9. Beat me to it on historical context.

Because of the WWII-era Stabilization Act (wage controls), unions shifted their focus from increased hourly wages to provision of employer-provided health care as a bargaining point, and that more than anything institutionalized the notion of employer-provided insurance in this country. FDR and Truman both suggested versions of a national health care plan, and IIRC Truman's was shot down because it sounded too "commie" to the average Americans.

[pinto]

10. One plausible scenario I've heard is that during WWII, manufacturing

wasn't able to increase wages in what had become a labor driven economy - labor intensive production for the war effort and allied support industries. An alternative was to offer a benefit package, outside of wage and price controls, that included health insurance subsidies. This gave large manufacturing concerns, particularly, a competitive edge in hiring and maintaining a stable work force. Once established, it became an ingrained part of most employment agreements.

Government sponsored health care as "socialism" is a more recent red herring. One side effect of the corporate subsidies was the growth of a large, private middle man in delivering health care - insurance companies. They have and will always fight to keep "their" piece of the funding stream.

Not to say that employer sponsored health care hasn't been a big boon for most Americans. Now that we see the unraveling of that system, though, it's weaknesses are apparent.

Government had an opportunity to establish broad-based state-supported health care and seemed to miss it. I'm sure there were a lot of competing and compelling interests in the war time decision, but in hindsight it sure would have been a good opportunity to seize.

[dsc]

11. It came from our different experiences in WW2

Europe had far more civilian casualties in the war and used public hospitals to take care of them. We didn't. The rest of the reason is given by others above.