Excuse this "copy & paste" but...

[SHRED]

...I cannot say it any clearer than this.

This was in response to, if single-payer was passed, what it would mean to American business and labor.

If Obama had instituted Medicare For All, there would have been an awakening of a Sleeping Giant.
The best consumers in the world would have money to buy widgets and services with.

But you have to hand it to the Chamber of Commerce types for looking long-range and avoiding a future they didn't want.

When Obama first started this "Healthcare Debate", Ford, Chrysler and GM were floundering.
Removing the burden of Health Insurance costs from those three Unionized companies probably would have saved Chrysler, and would have saved Union workers from having to make a lot of concessions.

Obama could have killed at least three birds with one stone: he could have saved Chrysler (and boosted US Manufacturing's confidence), helped support Labor Unions (poor little Hilda Solis would have appreciated that from her boss -remember her?),
unemployment would fall.

If Detroit's Big Three had reorganized without having to pay for healthcare for employees and retirees, things might have been different.
There would have been three large groups of Union workers with Job Security, while dangerously providing an example of how Unionized workers can be successful.

Without the burden of providing healthcare benefits for employees, thousands of American companies would be forced to try to hire American workers, build or lease larger facilities and buy a bunch of new machines.
Maybe some of them would opt for using expensive American-built machines.
Many companies would probably fail, because their leadership is so inept they can only survive by paying slave labor wages.

The worst thing is - it would have given Unions a shot in the arm. Millions of Americans with a new, unfamiliar feeling of Job Security would want to unionize.
The US businessmen ignored the fact that a new Middle Class would increase US demand for products and services - except many probably don't believe that.
Grover Nordquist and their business administration professors taught otherwise.

The "debate" had to at least be extanded long enough for one or two of the most iconic US manufacturers to die.
Then, conservative businessmen just stuck to their guns and waited for instructions.
Now their instructions are to complain about how Obama is destroying businesses and jobs. After months of confusion, they have marching orders again.

Because they blocked Universal Healthcare, more US companies will fail for lack of demand.
But the long-range goal of burying American Unions continues.
At least American business won't fail because they were forced to compete and learn how to expand their workforce.
Wages will be kept low.
Job Insecurity will remain high.
There will be a manageable, slow growth of 10-15 dollar an hour jobs between now and 2012.

The golf course greens will still be green and unnaturally perfect.

SOURCE:
http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=65684

[midnight]

1. Well, this twist about weakening unions was not one I had considered.

But it does makes one start to think about what Reagan did to the unions, and how much Obama admired Reagan...

[truedelphi]

2. And now Obama moves on to ObamaFood

And then his sad sorry circle of life will be complete.

ObamaFood, developped by the best bio-seed engineers in the Corporate World, promises to only take a mere 16% of each wage slave's earnings for their meals.

ObamaFood promises to bring about a revolution in the amount of pesticides like RoundUp that the average American can absord.

ObamaFood plans to ensure that no one needs their health insurance - they won't live long enough.

[mopinko]

3. ra ra ra. but what would it cost?

imho, the biggest obstacle to single payer is the wide spread assumption that it would be free, or next to free.
guess what? it would still cost a hell of a lot of money. a hell of a lot. an honest accounting would be a lot more impressive to me than this ra ra, no thought to the cost, cheerleader spew.

honestly, i would be as happy to see simple single payer as anyone. but the advocates just are not operating in the real world.

[spin]

4. If done properly, about 1/2 of what we currently pay...

I fault the Democratic Party and the media for not making this data the cornerstone of the effort to get single payer heathcare. We could have created a heathcare system FAR better than any other nation in the world for what we currently pay.

But then, the politicians we elect and the news media are merely corporate whores. Bought and paid for, they serve their masters well.

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

American medical care may be the most expensive in the world, but that does not mean it is worth every penny. A study to be released Thursday highlights the stark contrast between what the United States spends on its health system and the quality of care it delivers, especially when compared with many other industrialized nations.

The report, the second national scorecard from this influential health policy research group, shows that the United States spends more than twice as much on each person for health care as most other industrialized countries. But it has fallen to last place among those countries in preventing deaths through use of timely and effective medical care, according to the report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group in New York.

Access to care in the United States has worsened since the fund’s first report card in 2006 as more people — some 75 million — are believed to lack adequate health insurance or are uninsured altogether. And within the nation, the report found, the cost and quality of care vary drastically.
http://allcountries.org/health/usa_health_care_2008_nyt.html

edited to add data on rankings

[hootinholler]

5. About half of what we collectively pay for about 60% of the population

Think on that a minute. Half of what we currently pay to 'cover' less than all of us.

It's a crime, or should be.

-Hoot

[mopinko]

6. honestly, i don't believe that number.

covering twice as many people for half as much money? i just don't believe it.
i'm not calling you a liar. i am just saying that i think that number is not based in reality.

[spin]

8. France's model healthcare system ...

By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007

MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.

Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.

The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.

***snip***

Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.

We could have used the best healthcare systems in the world as a basis for an even better system of our own. Instead we decided to preserve a "for profit" system.





Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.

It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/

The information is readily available on the net. The fact that you are not aware of it or don't believe it is merely because the media and the people we elect don't want to see it become common knowledge.

Among OECD Nations, U.S. Lags in Personal Health
March 31, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Among the residents of all 30 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries Gallup surveyed between 2006 and 2008, Americans' satisfaction with their personal health falls near the group median despite having one of organization's highest GDPs per capita.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117205/americans-not-feeling-health-benefits-high-spending.aspx

[mopinko]

10. well, would you like to explain to me how you are going to roll back

both physician income and the entire tuition structure of medical schools? with your magic wand?

[spin]

11. If we can bail out Wall Street and the Big Banks...

we could provide quality heathcare for all Americans at 1/2 the price we now pay.

How did all the other countries accomplish this? Obviously, it's not impossible. France did it!

Watch this short video on Ted Kennedy and a speech he gave on healthcare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrJVbCzJH6c

Would he have approved of this sell out to the medical insurance industry.

Today is Christmas when many celebrate the birth of a very influential teacher who had far more compassion for the poor and downtrodden then the rich and powerful. If Jesus were alive today, what would he have to say about the heathcare plan?

[Cleita]

7. If you look north to our Canadian neighbors, they are able to deliver quality

and comprehensive health care to all of their citizens for half of what it costs us to deliver the same health care to 60% of our citizens.

[ljm2002]

9. Oh for heaven's sake...

...anyone who has been paying attention, knows there are plenty of facts and figures to support the notion that single payer is cheaper and has statistically better outcomes.

I am so, sooo tired of the talking point "Well the only reason people want single payer is they think it's free."

If we had single payer, I would end up paying more taxes. I am fine with that. I would much prefer that health care be a right for all of our citizens, and that we have a healthier population overall. Other side benefits are cited in the original post -- and those are very important! It would help our businesses to become more competitive. And, another added benefit is that people would not be stuck in a job strictly because of health coverage.

Finally, single payer would mean that everyone would be able to get actual health *care*, rather than high deductible, high copay plans that protect them from catastrophic health expenses but do little to help with required day-to-day health care.