lynnertic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 08:55 AM
Original message |
One reason that Kucinich's plan for single-payer non-profit health insurance |
|
is bad for big business:
Lowering the cost of health care for the average family would be a terrible blow to wage-slavery. Many people decide to stay in lousy jobs that don't pay what they should because they couldn't afford a lapse in health insurance.
Kucinich's plan for us, while it would be fantastic for us, would be bad for big business because it would empower ordinary people to demand better working conditions and better pay.
Or hell, just decide to work less. Two generations ago a bohemian poet could rent his own flat and live well on part-time work.
|
NMMNG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 08:58 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Making it feasible for ordinary people to make a living? |
evlbstrd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 09:02 AM
Response to Original message |
2. But it's good for business. |
|
It removes health insurance from the wage/benefit equation.
|
aquart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. It's especially good for small business and for start-ups. |
|
Which means it encourages challenges to big business.
|
TreasonousBastard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. This is true-- with all the pissing moaning about... |
|
Wal-Mart, many forget that your local supermarket, drugstore, or gas station offers absolutely no benefits at all along with the shit pay. Even paid vacations or holidays are rare.
Guaranteed health insurance is one step toward equalizing this.
(And it doiesn't have to be single-payer-- just universal)
|
Richard Steele
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 09:20 AM
Response to Original message |
SparkyMac
(288 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. I give up ! What does K&R mean ? |
|
I've been wondering for two or three weeks but have been embarrassed to ask.
|
Ino
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
Now if someone could explain exactly what "single-payer" and "universal" means, I'd be grateful!
|
sutz12
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
11. Simplified explanation.... |
|
"Single payer" refers to a system whereby there is only one entity providing the insurance, generally a government agency, but not necessarily. Essentially, anybody could go to a doctor and the bill would be sent to a centralized location/office/bureau.
"Universal coverage" means that everybody gets coverage, but the "how" could be somewhat open. It could mean that existing insurance companies cover people in a contracting scheme of some kind, that may or may not include mandatory purchase of insurance, like in the Massachusetts plan, IIRC (if I recall correctly).
Keep in mind that the two terms are not mutually exclusive, nor are they necessarily linked.
|
Ino
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
annabanana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
15. Universal healthcare, as opposed to Universal Coverage... |
|
Would take the profit motive OUT of the equation altogether. All money would be used to care for people, NO money would be added to a bottom line, or doled out to stockholders...
|
demodonkey
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
Richard Steele
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. Looks like that's been answered. But, as long as I'm responding... |
Hydra
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 10:37 AM
Response to Original message |
10. It's bad for the powers that be |
|
which tells you just how much they hate a real free market. If we were paid what we were worth and had choices of where we wanted to work, not only would we be much better off, we would be screwing up their theory of privilege.
|
sutz12
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
12. It's especially bad for Wall Street... |
|
A BIG slice of everybody's insurance premiums go to pay dividends on stocks.
|
Hydra
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. You're right, of course |
|
insurance was never supposed to be an industry of profit. Hedging against risk does not equate to massive leftovers.
|
lynnertic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
superkia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 03:44 PM
Response to Original message |
14. So why do the other candidates want to keep the profit in health care? |
|
Second question, if it would be better for us to have not for profit health care, why do so many support candidates that don't support what is better for the people instead of the corporations profiting?
|
lynnertic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
18. $$$$ -- Because the health care industry is 8% of our GDP and that is a lot of money |
|
or was that 12%???
The people who are invested in the current structure are filthy rich and funding the other candidates.
The candidates with money are getting all the press and making more of an impression upon voters because they can travel more and buy more ads and swag.
More publicity means even more votes and so on.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 12:28 AM
Response to Original message |