One reason we'll never have single-payer health care in the USA.

[Dulcinea]

Corporate America doesn't want it.

It's one of the things that keeps the middle & lower classes under their thumbs. How many people would quit their jobs in a heartbeat if they wouldn't lose their health insurance? How many people would tell their crappy jobs & bosses GOODBYE? How many people would no longer be corporate drones?

Think about it.

[Radical Activist]

1. Because liberals convince themselves it won't happen

and therefore don't fight for it. If we don't get it, that will by why. So thanks for the positive attitude!

Actually, there are some corporations and employers who would love to not have to pay for health insurance for their employees anymore. Corporate America is divided on the issue so we should be working with those who support it.

[Not Me]

2. Actually corporate america shot itself in the foot

in 1993 opposing health care proposals of the Clinton WH.
They am, I am sure, regretting that today.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. That the problem

Junk Bond Ford and Junk Bond GM and Pension Default United Airlines all fought it in 93.

My recollection (correct me if I am wrong) is that reasonably solvent, multi-national IBM and reasonably solvent, multi-national Microsoft did not oppose it.

We are going to off-shore more and more jobs until we get to "single payer" funded through the tax system and get away from gazillion for profit payers funded through the corporate balance sheet.

[raccoon]

3. Absolutely, as premiums go higher and higher

corporations would love to get out of paying it. Maybe if enough corporations started bellyaching about it something would get done.

[Cleita]

5. Actually, if the doctors and medical care professionals got

behind it, then there is a very good chance. Other than that, the government could offer Medicare coverage to employers and unions in competition with the insurance companies and HMO's for better coverage with less cost. This would squeeze them out of business. Other than that, as long as there is a Republican majority in all aspects of our government, you are right.

Another thing though, is many states have or will have medical coverage in reality. If enough states come on board then it will be a small step to make it national. This is how Canada's system started.

[ArkDem]

6. They would quit their jobs and.....?

[Dulcinea]

7. Go into business for themselves?

Take a job they like better?

[ArkDem]

10. Going into business would take more money than healthcare.

[cheezus]

8. nothing, they've got universal healthcare!

surely they'd eventually get a feeding tube?

[Warpy]

9. We'll get it, but on a state by state basis

and here's why: The insurance industry is undergoing the same sort of merger and megamerger that has given most of us the "choice" of only one to three McBanks in our areas. They will then start to pull out of areas they find to be "unprofitable," meaning areas that either have low wages or high medical costs. States will be forced to act, one at a time, as the majority of the population finds itself uninsured.

States are already quietly exploring this stuff, although state leges don't yet have enough of a crisis to bother pissing off corporate donors to act. They will, though. The system we have now is irretrievably broken, and it is going to get far worse.

[Sandpiper]

11. The AMA doesn't want it either

The U.S. has the most overpaid doctors in the entire world, and they'd like to keep it that way.

[Coastie for Truth]

12. Have to differentiate between AMA and docs in general

There is a growing contingent of docs who favor single payer (less then half of the docs even belong to the AMA) -- MISTER Frist does not speak for DOCTORS like Sidney Wolfe or Steffi Woolhandler or David Himmelstein.

You may want to go the the and search on Steffi Woolhandler or David Himmelstein. Check out--

1.

2.

Single-payer national health insurance. Physicians' views.

McCormick D, Himmelstein DU, Woolhandler S, Bor DH.

Arch Intern Med. 2004 Feb 9;164(3):300-4.

Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

BACKGROUND: Forty-one million Americans have no health insurance and, despite the growth of managed care, medical costs are again increasing rapidly. One proposed solution is a single-payer health care financing system with universal coverage. Yet, physicians' views of such a system have not been well studied. METHODS: We surveyed a random sample of physicians (from the American Medical Association Masterfile) in Massachusetts, regarding their views on a single-payer health care financing system and other financing and physician work-life issues that such a system might affect. RESULTS: Of 1787 physicians, 904 (50.6%) responded to our survey. When asked which structure would provide the best care for the most people for a fixed amount of money, 63.5% of physicians chose a single-payer system; 10.7%, managed care; and 25.8%, a fee-for-service system. Only 51.9% believed that most physician colleagues would support a single-payer system. Most respondents would give up income to reduce paperwork, agree that it is government's responsibility to ensure the provision of medical care, believe that insurance firms should not play a major role in health care delivery, and would prefer to work under a salary system. CONCLUSIONS: Most physicians in Massachusetts, a state with a high managed care penetration, believe that single-payer financing of health care with universal coverage would provide the best care for the most people, compared with a managed care or fee-for-service system. Physicians' advocacy of single-payer national health insurance could catalyze a renewed push for its adoption.

What is interesting is the "disconnect"

When asked which structure would provide the best care for the most people for a fixed amount of money, 63.5% of physicians chose a single-payer system; 10.7%, managed care; and 25.8%, a fee-for-service system. Only 51.9% believed that most physician colleagues would support a single-payer system.

3.

Proposal of the Physicians' Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance.

Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU, Angell M, Young QD; Physicians' Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance.

Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass 02139, USA.

The United States spends more than twice as much on health care as the average of other developed nations, all of which boast universal coverage. Yet more than 41 million Americans have no health insurance. Many more are underinsured. Confronted by the rising costs and capabilities of modern medicine, other nations have chosen national health insurance (NHI). The United States alone treats health care as a commodity distributed according to the ability to pay, rather than as a social service to be distributed according to medical need. In this market-driven system, insurers and providers compete not so much by increasing quality or lowering costs, but by avoiding unprofitable patients and shifting costs back to patients or to other payers. This creates the paradox of a health care system based on avoiding the sick. It generates huge administrative costs that, along with profits, divert resources from clinical care to the demands of business. In addition, burgeoning satellite businesses, such as consulting firms and marketing companies, consume an increasing fraction of the health care dollar. We endorse a fundamental change in US health care--the creation of an NHI program. Such a program, which in essence would be an expanded and improved version of traditional Medicare, would cover every American for all necessary medical care. An NHI program would save at least 200 billion dollars annually (more than enough to cover all of the uninsured) by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry and reducing spending for marketing and other satellite services. Physicians and hospitals would be freed from the concomitant burdens and expenses of paperwork created by having to deal with multiple insurers with different rules, often designed to avoid payment. National health insurance would make it possible to set and enforce overall spending limits for the health care system, slowing cost growth over the long run. An NHI program is the only affordable option for universal, comprehensive coverage.

And many, many more at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi, search "woolhandler"

[TahitiNut]

13. The Department of Defense doesn't want it, either.

They'd probably lose 25% of their enlisted personnel. :shrug:

[killbotfactory]

14. No, it's because they are making money hand over fist

If a treatment costs a lot of money, what's a sick person going to do, refuse treatment? Hell no, and the companies in on the sham are going to gouge the shit out of them for as much as they can get. Single-payer would derail the whole money train, and they medical companies in the racket are going to use all their resources (money, lobbyists) to fight against it.

[Dulcinea]

15. kick

:kick: