Why doesn't our Corpratocracy ADVOCATE single-payer healthcare?

The costs to busines are staggering. The ability to compete would be vastly improved. I don't understand why US megacorps aren't lobbying for this. It's a win-win for them and us.

They don't want to lose all those plush vacations and dinners with the lobbyists

If the US government can essentially drive out all private health insurance companies and replace it with one non-profit entity that covers everyone, then they ask, "Where does government stop?" What would stop the next FDR in the future from nationalizing oil pipelines and oil refineries on US soil to cut out more profit margins? Also, if single-payer is being enacted, it is likely the industrialists and bankers who will have to pay the highest percentage of their income to run such a program.

Insurance and the drug companies have the biggest pull with Republicons. Other companies, like the auto makers, would love single payer health care, because every other nation on the planet does it, and it woulda kept us competitive.

much better off if everyone were in one coverage pool. and the employees would get lower premiums and/or copays & coinsurance.

but I have been saying this since I worked in the Medicare program 30 years ago .

We've heard for years that they're being crushed under the weight of (among other things) employee health insurance costs. Seems like single-payer would be a no-brainer for them.

If they wanted their factories to remain in the US they would advocate for universal healthcare to cut costs.

various problems associated with your medical care. If you are insured by your employer, the kinds of damages you can get if you sue for malpractice or for not getting the care you need from your insurance company are very limited thanks to a Scalia decision and the wording of Nixon's ERISA legislation. (I am not aware that Congress has changed that wording but I could be wrong. If so, I apologize because my theory is incorrect.)

If each of us gets our own private healthcare, the damages we can get from our health insurance company and our medical practitioners are determined by state law pretty much. ERISA pre-empts this state law.

I don't think our corporatocracy, which is heavily enmeshed and gets a lot of investments from the insurance industry, wants change in this area.

This is probably not the only reason, but one of them.

They put it in a ballot for their shareholders.

Check it out:

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/blog/nyceve/2008/05/27/in-seismic-shift-sec-backs-healthcare-question-corporate-proxy-statements

And besides, how many stick with their crappy paying jobs for the insurance? It would much harder to give workers crappy terms if they aren't dependent on the company for insurance.

Julie

and many have dropped coverage altogether. I don't think companies are using insurance benefits to keep people captive -- it started as a perk to help retention but now it's a staggering obligation, as well as an administrative nightmare.

it's about the owners maintaining control

These days, it's big pharma and other medical/insurance giants.

The game has changed. It's really hurting them.

Single payer would make moot much of the ageism and sexism in hiring.

they prefer having those of us in the working classes as fearful, insecure and powerless as possible. Denying us health care serves their interests.