Universal single payer health care will stimulate the growth of small businesses and create jobs

I've said this on several threads but it doesn't
seem to sink in.

The single greatest advantage USP is that it
will stimulate economic growth and take the
cost of providing health care off the backs
of small business owners.

This is a fact that should appeal to conservative
business owners who are against health care reform.

Imagine not having to pay one cent in premium contributions,
co-pays or fees to insurance companies.

You don't have to imagine it. If an American company moved
to Canada it would not be required to contribute anything
toward employee health care.

This would represent a saving to US businesses small and
large and increase their competitiveness in foreign markets

see

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13325/

It is a mystery to me why the Democrats are not shouting
this out to anyone who will listen.

Our elected Representatives refuse to listen. They have too many dollar bills stuck in their pockets and ears and covering their eyes.

80% favor it. But we might as well be invisible. We need a general strike to hammer the message through the barricades.

He might as well be invisible too.

And even with a majority like the Dems enjoy now
he, or rather his successor Woodrow Loyd had to
beat down a general strike by doctors who refused
to comply with the Saskatchewan Medical Care Act.


So Americans are not going to see Universal Single
Payer without a fight and a few lost battles before
the war is won.

And make no mistake the Insurance Industry has declared
war on Obama and the American people. They did it in
Saskatchewan in 1961 and they are doing it now in Quebec.

:dem:

-Laelth

You are, of course, preaching to the choir.

That may be why we don't respond as enthusiastically as you might have hoped.

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

And I hope you recognize that I appreciate your argument.

:dem:

-Laelth

health care insurance. If you owe your health
care coverage to your employer then you're
a slave. He can treat you like shit and you
have to eat it. You have no choice. You can't
change jobs unless your new employer offers
similar coverage. Even the then there is
a waiting period before the benefits kick in
IIRC

That translates into a stressed out, resentful
and ultimately inefficient work force.

With single payer your insurance goes with you
from job to job and State to State, increasing
employee mobility.

In fact the only reason I can think of that
employers like the present system is that it
enforces employee loyalty and compliance.

That's why employers love it. They can get away with abusing their labor. And for may years, they have passed off health insurance rate increases to their employees (nearly all of whom, now, pay for part of the cost of their insurance through deductions from their pay). All gain, no pain, for the employers.

:dem:

-Laelth

of an international mining equipment and service
provider. The company was non union and in fact
anti union.

There main customers were the large nickel miners
in Sudbury Ont. This company depended on it's
survival on providing just in time equipment
maintenance to these large mines.

They had to provide these services 24 hours per
day 7 days a week because the mines had to be
worked constantly in order to make a profit.

The mines worked on a 3% profit margin. The VP
of the supply company I interviewed told me
without my asking that without Universal Health
Care the mines would close. The reason being
that the dangerous nature of mining operations
would require that the company foot the entire
cost of health care for it's employees including
ambulance, EMT services as well as on site clinics
and medical staff.

That's why he said so many foreign companies choose
to do business in Canada.

Freepers especially seem to feel they could never lose their jobs. Maybe they are in denial.

I agree 100%.
Money saved from not having to insure employees(if i ever have enough business to hire some)could be used to either re-invest in my business or pay my employees better.

but it should be less than what they are paying now.

:)

And if anyone can explain to me what public
option means I am all ears.

that is barely discussed, mostly marginalized and misrepresented.

Pelosi did agree to allow a vote on an amendment to the House bill which would basically substitute a SP plan for the bill, but in general the Democrats would rather not allow any debate on the issue.

Some say the public option is a path to a national insurance system, but it has been a very slow road.

:(

Advance of Health Insurance (1912-1945)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTjAMY6mK5w

National Health Insurance Debate Under Nixon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGKkPEvD2OM

Start by increasing Medicare coverage to include
young workers under 30 yrs earning $20,000 per year
or less. Step two insure everyone earning $20,000
or less. This would be paid for by mandatory employer
payroll deductions and possibly a federal payroll tax
specifically for medicare. I think the tax already is
in place I'm not sure.

Douglas started by taking over the few private hospitals
in Saskatchewan and making emergency and extended care
free leaving outpatient and general practice private.

Eventually managed to pass universal health insurance but
only by 1961 and a major fight with doctors and insurers
was he able to achieve his goal. It took 13 years starting
in 1948 but he did it and went on to Ottawa and pushed for
national health care.

I mean, it seems as obvious as the sky being blue that a single payer system would not only hugely benefit small business development and growth and, therefore, job growth, but would also greatly benefit larger corporations to become more competitive in the market. Hell, it may also entice a lot of companies to bring back to the good ole U. S. of A jobs that have long since been outsourced due to high costs such as health care.

In addition to this, with universal health care, it only stands to reason that people will be generally healthier and, therefore, happier and more productive. A win-win situation any way you look at it.

If people have access to affordable and reliable
single payer health care they tend to use it in
moderation. This sounds counter intuitive but
if you can afford regular doctor visits then you
tend not to leave ignore health problems until you
require acute or intensive care.

The catch 22 of the present system is that people
who go to emergency must be treated whether the
can pay or not but emergency treatment is the most
expensive for of health intervention.

Just ask yourself how many of the 44 Million uninsured
Americans get most of their health care in the emergency
room?

Its existence, as well as the suppression of it, serves as an example that illustrates just how much the "good guys" really aren't on our side. Questioning our own chosen leaders is wrong, and will only lead to the end of this fine illusion of democracy.

with many other countries because of the providing of health insurance. Most have complained for decades. Now what did we do-but start out with plans that have to provide health insurance. It is crap. they-the plans being considered.