National Healthcare will Soon Be a Reality

I predict that when the Fortune 500 companies start to drop healthcare and reduce the amount they pay to the insurance vampires that we will see the birth of National Healthcare.

You see this is my logic... When companies drop healthcare from their payroll offering then it will be up the individuals to pay for it out of pocket. With premiums ranging from $15K-$25K for a family of four to pay for healthcare...the vast majority of US citizens will find themselves uninsured and those "healthcare savings accounts" will be a mere bandaid.

The Insurers will freak out they will be desparate as their cash flow disappears..and they will petition for a national healthcare system...they will be the ones to partition the country into regions and they will out maneuver one another until they each have a piece ....This is very similar to how Medicaid is handled...

The very ones lobbying against it now will be the first ones to be on board to help the government manage the new system.

national system.
The doctors might as uninsured do not visit the doctor until they are really sick.

and then they changed their tune.

I predict that about 4-6 major insurance companies will be the "contractors" that handle the National Healthcare system for the US government. That will guarantee them payment and it will make their business more stable...they won't be cutting one another's throats for company contracts.

It will also mean a savings in HR and payroll costs for companies as well. One simple US tax to replace all the red tape...

those firms will be more concerned with their bottom line than with the public good. Hence you'd still see the companies bullying patients. Furthermore you'd still see the endless trails of redtape that don't occur in the much more efficient Canadian and European systems where the government's health insurance plan is administered in house.

The only reason you'd want private insurance companies involved in a national plan would be to avoid their political opposition. Having only 4-6 companies delivering basic coverage would do nothing to court the hundreds of firms that would be left out and hence still oppose the plan. So what would be the point.

While there is growing public pressure for a national health care plan, two conditions are necessary for such a plan to ever come to life:

1. Democrat in the White House with a Democratic House and Senate. We know damn well that any plan with the GOP's fingers on it will put monied interests first and the public good last.

2. The Democrats drawing up a plan are completely free of any influence by insurance companies. So long as we try to contort our policy to appease these firms, we fall short of the target of providing the best possible coverage for all Americans.

Not a 100% national health care endorsement, but he backed some sort of government plan to ensure that the uninsured are taken care of (of course, he probably meant taken care of by Aetna...) it's a start.

Remember, Bill Clinton's first attempt to appoint an attorney general was Zoe Baird, the then lead counsel at Aetna. I always look back and wonder if Nannygate hadn't of happened to her, would she have been able to line up some insurance companies behind Hillary's plan because she was from the industry?

I know many people who would take a stab at starting a new business, but they don't because they cannot leave their family uninsured while they get the ball rolling. I don't know why Democrats don't use this arguement cause it's true ...

I have made this many times. (see my post below)

Don't you think companies like GM and UTC would love to move their operations back from Canada into the US? Just think of the public relations! The boards of directors of both companies would probably be carried on the shoulders of jubilant works from Canada to Detroit or to Connecticut.

A good point to make if you ever write a LTTE on this. Last year, 2004, France drew more foreign investment than the United States, despite the US having a much bigger economy overall and the dollar being weak. The reason? France has one of the top national health care plans in the world, while the US is #37. Because of the national health care in France, it is still cheaper do to business there. (of course, both countries still lagged China, a country with no national health care...)

in the argument. Imagine all the people who would soon have jobs because of that. The economy would surplus again. I would love that.

The healthcare industry is gigantic and powerful. They will distort or discredit any argument, however legitimate, that undermines their considerable economic interests.

the largest corporations, like Wal-Mart ($288 billion); ExxonMobil ($270 billion); GM, Ford, General Electric, ChevronTexaco, CitiGroup, etc. are far larger than any of the top health insurers like United Health, Wellpoint/Anthem, Aetna, Cigna, etc.

Heck, ExxonMobil had more NET profit last year than most of them had in total revenue.

The pharmaceuticals are the biggest & strongest lobby out there, and they likely oppose national health care, too.

for health insurance, I just wonder what would happen if they felt that an actual propoaganda campaign were necessary. This is just specualtion, but I imagine that they would be difficult to combat.

Maybe because I live in Connecticut near Hartford (the insurance capital of the world), but I rarely notice ads for health insurance. I regularly see ads for various prescription drugs like Levitra, Cialis, etc. And, I do see ads for Life Insurance like Pacific Life & MassMutual's Oppenheimer Funds.

We should take an economic approach. Those who will be swayed by the emotional fairness and caring for people approach are already on board. We have to win enough of the rest by convincing them of the economic sense of universal health care, and that it won't mean a trip to the welfare office to get it.

With people pressure AND corporate pressure, we can DO THIS!

I heard a story on NPR about GM closing plants in the next few years. The thing that stuck out to me was when they said that GM would be negotiating health care costs with labor unions and that because GM provides health insurance to its employees it adds $1,500 to the price of each vehicle they make.

Why don't we have universal health care in this country? It seems that businesses would be all for this because they would not have to provide health care to their employees. They would be able to hire more people and pay better wages.

Howard Dean said that we are the only industrialized country without a universal health care system. If Democrats frame the issue in a way that benefits business then something might change.

GM has major operations in Canada. Why is that? Not because the average wages are a bit lower... it's because they don't have to pay employee health insurance and that adds a huge savings on cars made in Canada.

United Technologies (parent company of Otis (elevators); Carrier (air conditioners); Sikorsky (helicopters) and others) also has major operations in Canada for the same reason.

In fact, both GM and UTC lobbied the Canadian government to strengthen their national health care system!

Now, don't you think it would be a HUGE public relations coup for GM if they were able to move jobs from Canada back into the US?

not the USA

I think by 2008 people will be ready for national health care and it could be a big part of the debates. My state a lone is having a lot of problems with it's health care problems and not having health care is expensive. People are losing their jobs and with their jobs comes benefits which includes health care. With people low on cash they can't afford to pay full prices of care. Hopefully either republican or democratic it'll happen.

...and the corporations won't be jumping up anytime soon to champion ANY healthcare program.

Ordinary people are trying to hold on to their jobs these days even if health/medical insurance isn't offered. And people are getting increasingly more agitated about the longevity of their jobs.

Insurance companies will continue to insure individuals and/or families that can afford the premiums, primarily because they will consider those people to be good financial risks to insure. At the same time, the insurance companies are cutting lower and middle income individuals and families from their rosters as fast as they can because they are most likely to lapse their coverage. They are also beginning to look hard at the financial standing of people applying for health insurance because they want long-term clients who will be able to pay their premiums.

National healthcare program. Not very likely, IMHO.