Question about Nationalized Universal Healthcare

[dragonrider]

There was recently a very lively debate about the different healthcare plans of the two candidates in the Obama and McCain "change" poll threads. And after thinking so much about healthcare policy, I had a question I would like to pose to the canncom community:

Why aren't corporate interests the ones pushing hardest for nationalized healthcare?

In the US, about 60% of Americans get healthcare insurance through their employers, with the company picking up a large part of the cost. A healthcare benefit is just something Americans expect from a "good job." It seems to me like both of the plans proposed by the two candidates build on the idea that healthcare should be provided by employers, with government programs to pick up some of the slack. For better or worse, neither one is proposing a truely "nationalized" healthcare system provided through the government and subsidized by taxpayers.

A lot of Americans are actually opposed to such a "nationalized" healthcare system, but why would corporate America be opposed to it or even just neutral about it? Why not in favor? Right now American corporations pick up a huge proportion of healthcare cost in this country as a benefit to their employees. That is a huge cost. Those coprporations compete with corporations in other countries that have nationalized healthcare and do not have this added cost. American corporations operate at a disadvantage because they pay this healthcare expense that other companies around the world do not have to pay. That added cost either gets taken off the bottom line or added to the price of goods.

Doesn't it seem like they would want to dump this cost off on the government and the taxpayers? Corporations are not shy about dumping off costs, so why not this one? I know for certain that every company I have worked for in the last 15 years has complained about the high cost of healthcare benefits and has worked to publicise the fact that the cost goes up 10% to 15% a year.

So why is it always "left-wing liberals" who want nationalized healthcare? Why isn't it corporate shareholders and CEOs pushing for nationalized healthcare so they can shed the cost and be more competitive and profitable?

After thinking about it all day, I honestly have no clue, so I wanted to throw it out for discussion.

dragonrider Reviewed by dragonrider on 06-20-2008. Question about Nationalized Universal Healthcare There was recently a very lively debate about the different healthcare plans of the two candidates in the Obama and McCain "change" poll threads. And after thinking so much about healthcare policy, I had a question I would like to pose to the canncom community: Why aren't corporate interests the ones pushing hardest for nationalized healthcare? In the US, about 60% of Americans get healthcare insurance through their employers, with the company picking up a large part of the cost. A Rating: 5

[fishman3811]

Hey Dragon ..Well the companies that provide heath care to their workers are not that much worse of than say companies that are here in Canada say because Canadian companies do pay higher taxes up here so i dont know if Canadian companies are better off than your American companies that provide heath care.I think American companies fear a large tax increase will come if you guys get national heath care,maybe thats why they are not all gung ho for it.But if you guys get a heath care plan like us expect your taxes on things like beer and cigs and oil to go up.

[Psycho4Bud]

I think American companies fear a large tax increase will come if you guys get national heath care,maybe thats why they are not all gung ho for it.But if you guys get a heath care plan like us expect your taxes on things like beer and cigs and oil to go up.

MY GOD...I agree with fishman, now this is something new.

A question to ya fishman; did this tax also go onto such things as cigars and wine? Seems when the 6 figure salary crowd want want to feel better about themselves they manage to tax the middle and lower class in this sort of manner while leaving thier recreational use items alone.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Dave Byrd]

Why aren't corporate interests the ones pushing hardest for nationalized healthcare?

According to what US News and World Report said and something my wife's former CEO also told me, many of them are pushing for it, especially within the last three years as insuring their workforces has gotten painfully expensive. Bird worked for a Fortune 100 company that insured something insane like 160,000 employees around the world, at least in countries where there wasn't govt-subsidized coverage. About 90,000K of its employees were in America. So it cost multi-millions to provide health coverage for that employee population. They were rich enough to cover that employee population, but the pain from doing so was bad. Per US News, big businesses for whom health care expenses have begun to eat into annual revenue and damage shareholder/dividend value were the first to come around on nationally supplemented coverage. Those sized companies are still going to have to help cover their populations, though, at great expense, and they'll pick up lots more of the tab for it from a nationalized plan, too, in taxes or corporate premiums. Nationalized care will help, though.

Pretty sure we haven't heard more about it for two reasons.
A, it hasn't been fashionable to clamor for nationalized health care from a political perspective, especially by good, right-aligned (business) loyalists. Then B, there are a lot more small businesses in the country that simply don't offer insurance at all or only offer the bare minimum or coverage that employees can buy on their own. So those businesses haven't felt that expense so bad and haven't cared one way or the other. Their employees feel the pain when they either try to get health care on their own or face a medical crisis, though.

For me, insuring my people is one of my top three expenses now. There are groups we can join to help put us into bigger insurance pools. The Texas Med Assoc offers a couple. Man, it hurts, though. Lots of physicians have stopped covering their offices entirely, which is unconscionable since they get coverage themselves and professional courtesy freebie care, at least from other doctors, and always will. It's not physician care that eats anyone alive and sends them to bankruptcy court, though. It's hospital and facility bills (like rehab facility). Some cancer bills, too, can be just as terminal as the disease itself.

If more big businesses would start squawking and lobbying for nationalized plans (they do that on the sly, generally, when they do it), Congress and the Senate would hear that loud and clear.

[dragonrider]

Thanks everyone who replied.

I wonder if it is really the fear of higher taxes or if it has more to do with the political acceptability of pushing for a nationalized industry. I can see a CEO running the numbers and deciding it would cost less to have the government handle healthcare, even if it meant higher taxes, but then having that CEO think, "But, I can't come out in favor of nationalized healthcare! What would the boys at the country club say? They'd think I'd turned commie!"

If it really is the fear of higher taxes, then I can see why they will never support it from a bottom-line point of view. But if it is actually something more political than bottom-line oriented, I would not be surprised to see shareholders begin to push for it. If it affects profitability, eventually shareholders will demand it, even if CEOs are against it politically.

I personally am not sure I am in favor of a truly nationalized system. I would worry about taxes, choice, and quality of service. The reason for bringing up the thread was not to push one way or the other on the issue of nationalized healthcare --- it was to look at it from a straight bottom-line point of view for corporations that have huge healthcare costs.

[killerweed420]

I think part of it is the corporations get a tax right off for there healthcare programs where if it was nationailized they'd lose that.

[fishman3811]

P4B i dont think the six figure crowd is immune to sin taxes unless your a saint a pack of COLTS with 5 or 6 cigars costs around 7 bucks a bottle of cheap wine is 11-15 bucks a bottle of Crown Royal 40 ouncer is 35-40 bucks a pack of smokes is 12 bucks soo yeah most of what we pay for those things is taxes.But i think the government should be responsible for health care i find it funny how those that are opposed to universal health care talk about the Canadian model and how fucked up it is BUT there are other countries who have universal health care and do it rather well.Look at Japans model look at Germanies model both have great health care,France is another country.So dont diss universal health care because it can work in your country as well you just have to find the right model.I really dont care that i have high sin taxes because i can see my family doctor anytime for anything and i dont get a bill,i can go to the emergency room in any hospital and get treated and i dont have to take out my credit card.Yes we have long waiting lists for surgery but the government is trying to address it,its not perfect but what is?

[something]

universal healthcare, frickin stupid

government is so great right? they handle everything more efficient and cheaper than the private sector? yeh right. why in the hell would you want to give even more power to the federal government? for the greater good right? we might as well just send our entire paychecks to the government and then they can provide us with what we need, i bet it'd be utopia.

the US healthcare system is fucked up, but only an idiot would want the government to take it over, there's definately a better solution, although i don't know what that would be.

[fishman3811]

Something every other industialized country in the world has universal health care except America so i guess every other country is wrong.

[Psycho4Bud]

P4B i dont think the six figure crowd is immune to sin taxes

I recall back in the early "90"s when they were going to raise the tax on beer but not on wine....created quite the stink. Fact is, if your in the six figure crowd you can pay these taxes with little effect on your present "standard of life" while those in the lower income ranges can't afford this tax and it does have an effect on their recreational usage....at least for some.

Have a good one!:s4: