If single-payer national health care cut today's massive cost difference between health care in the US and that in other advanced nations by just one-quarter, you and I would both rejoice.
And, not only would we save money, so would our employers.
Additional taxes on the corporate as well as the individual side would be needed for national health care, of course. But on the corporate side, even more than the individual side, they would be offset by not paying private health care insurers even more.
So, why aren't companies pushing for single-payer?
In reality, I don't think most of them buy the "it's socialism" line.
Rather, private health care lets them keep employees in a state of feudalized serfdom.
Since you and I don't have national health care that travels with us wherever we go, it's not really "our" insurance that we actually goet — it's our company's. We don't own it.
This is one reason I intend to either undervote or find a write-in candidate in the Texas U.S. Senate race rather than vote Beto O'Rourke. The man's "access for all" isn't good enough.
Think about how American employers talk about "bennies" as being as precious as Gollum's ring. Do workers in other advanced economies act that way? Not that I'm aware of, and it's not just health insurance vs national health care. It's guaranteed paid vacation time that puts the US to shame. Family leave time, also paid.
Serfdom or late-stage capitalism? Become more and more the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are appreciated, as is at least a modicum of politeness.
Comments are moderated, so yours may not appear immediately.
Due to various forms of spamming, comments with professional websites, not your personal website or blog, may be rejected.