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.
dragonrider Reviewed by dragonrider on . 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