To get Universal Health care we will need the business sector on our side.

[alfredo]

Without them, we will not be heard. Let's face it, how many businesses would love to be out from under the thumbs of the insurance industry. It can be paid for by rescinding bush's tax cut for the rich, and ending bush's war. The rich would gain in two ways if they demand their tax cuts rescinded. First it would be a good PR move, though many don't give a shit what we think. Of course those who's name is associated with a business would reap good PR. Also, their stock value would go up when their businesses no longer had to pay out their share of health insurance. They will be able to cut overhead by not having to pay people to administer their health plans. Another benefit is a healthy workforce.

Maybe we should work on a way to sell Universal Health Care as being good for business and families.

[flamin lib]

1. The auto makers are already working on Universal Health Care.

GM says it has $2-4k built into every car for health care and foreign car makers don't because they are among the 36 industrialized nations that already have universal health care. The CEO of the last company I worked for was ready for it every time the company policy was renewed and I've spoken to any number of other upper management types that are ready for it.

The business lobby has to reach a tipping point with the pharma & insurance lobby. Once that happens we will have our health taken care of.

[alfredo]

5. Are there any groups working on this?

[antigop]

14. PLEASE READ the info at the link

http://www.hrpolicy.org/initiatives/nha_1.asp

I think this is the business "solution".

[alfredo]

16. I read it, but it still goes through private insurance. We need to break

that link.

[antigop]

17. Absolutely -- it still goes through private insurance-- and that is their solution n/t

[Clark2008]

18. Absolutely.

We need to write GM and Ford and explain why we need to break that link. They're working toward ending employer-provided health insurance right now, so we need to strike while the iron is hot. Let them know that private insurance is NOT the way to go and, if they want to compete with their foreign counterparts, then they need to emulate what's best about their foreign counterparts' health insurance systems, which DOES NOT include the private health insurance industry.

[antigop]

20. THEY ARE WORKING ON THEIR OWN SOLUTION (sorry for shouting)

Please read the links -- they are not working on a Medicare for All approach.

Here is the Board of Directors:
http://www.hrpolicy.org/about/about_bod.asp

Look who is on the board:
Joe W. Laymon
Group Vice President, Corporate Human Resources & Labor Affairs
Ford Motor Company

[alfredo]

25. That doesn't mean we can present our own ideas. Why should we

sit back and let the monied interest make decisions without our input. That's what got us into the fix we are in now.

[antigop]

33. Go ahead and present your own ideas, but corporations are presenting their own solution. n/t

[alfredo]

34. It would be a hell of a lot better if we had a say on matters that

concern us.

[antigop]

35. The corporations are going ahead with their own plans. It doesn't matter what "we" say. n/t

[alfredo]

36. We still have to put up a fight and not just roll over.

[antigop]

37. And while we are putting up a fight, the corporations are already starting to implement n/t

[alfredo]

40. We have to make sure we are in charge, not the corporations. Fight on.

[antigop]

41. Just don't expect the corporations to be on your side. n/t

[alfredo]

42. It depends on the size of our side.

[antigop]

44. uh, no. It doesn't matter. They will support THEIR solution. n/t

[alfredo]

45. If we take on the attitude that we can't win, it stacks the deck.

against us. It's going to be a struggle no matter what.

[antigop]

47. They have their own plan. They won't support what we want. It's that simple. n/t

[alfredo]

48. Like I said, if they are confronted by overwhelming numbers

they will have to make accommodations.

[BlooInBloo]

49. They *still* won't support out side. They'll go down kicking and screaming if necessary...

... The whole concept "get them on our side" was spun out of whole cloth, and needs to be put in the recycle bin. They will never be on our side. We can still WIN, it'll just be without them on our side.

[antigop]

51. deleted n/t

nt

[antigop]

52. Getting them on our side will be as successful as us going over to theirs. n/t

[alfredo]

54. No so much on our side as realizing they have to go along. The bosses

were never on our side by had to let us unionize.

[antigop]

55. NO, read your OP. You said "we will need the business sector on our side"

That's what you said.

[alfredo]

56. Getting out of our way is in effect approval.

[antigop]

64. Oh, please! They're not getting out of our way. They will fight for their solution. n/t

[alfredo]

67. Some businesses will side with us. The more the better. There are

a few ethical businessmen and women out there.

[antigop]

68. And the corporations will fight us every step of the way. What don't you understand? n/t

[alfredo]

72. I understand that, but in any war or conflict you gather as many

allies as possible. The business community is not monolithic, some want progressive programs.

[antigop]

73. And you are not going to get the corporate sector as an ally n/t

[alfredo]

74. Not all of them but there are some who see the value of UHC. It's worth

a try. It's hell of a lot better than cowering before their power and influence.

[antigop]

75. No, it's a better use of time to work on people who will actually support us n/t

[alfredo]

76. That goes without saying. We need to do more than just preach to the

choir, we need to build a wide base of support, and that includes looking for support in places not historically inclined to be concerned with the common man. If we get a handful of businesses in support, that is a plus.

I work as a precinct captain in a Republican Precinct. I do not assume that an R after his/her name means they will not be receptive to my candidate (s). No vote is to be taken for granted.

[antigop]

77. So don't waste your time trying to get the corporate sector to support us. n/t

[alfredo]

79. It's not black and white, there are progressives in the business sector.

There are "Blue" companies who may be willing to help. We can't just say that all businesses are against us. I would want the backing of Costco, Apple, Ben & Jerry's. it would not be in our best interests to insult them by assuming they will be the enemy. It is not a waste of time. Paying a business or individual the common courtesy of a visit could make a difference. You have to open a dialog. That business coming to your side might have a big check to help, or would be willing to do TV ads.

Backing the working people can pay big dividends to business. It's good PR to be on the side of a popular issue. Look at all the businesses that are touting their environmental record. Some are truthful, some are not, but still they wouldn't be going public if they didn't feel it was good for them.

[antigop]

81. Fine. Do whatever you want. I'll spend my time on something that will produce results. n/t

[alfredo]

83. So you are willing to discard potential supporters who may have

deep pockets and a large workforce that will probably go along with the CEO.

[antigop]

86. I really don't know what you don't understand. Corporations have their own solution, not ours n/t.

[alfredo]

88. I know they have their own plan, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't

present our own plan and promote it vigorously.

The Republicans have their own plan for America, should we not try to educate them and try to win them over to our side?

[antigop]

90. Yes, if you want to waste your time -- by all means do so. n/t

[alfredo]

92. It is not a waste. There are many large and small cap companies

that are progressive and will be willing to hear us out. there are many more who want to be out from under the thumb of the insurance companies.


http://www.bluefund.com/

[antigop]

94. Fine. Do whatever you want. I'll spend my time on something that will produce results. n/t

[alfredo]

96. Doing one thing doesn't mean you can't do another too. It's hard to

win with just your base, you need to reach out. You may not change many minds, but any victories are sweet. One changed mind means two in your ranks.

[antigop]

97. It's a free country -- you do what you want. I'll spend my time on something productive n.t

[antigop]

50. Nope. They have their own plan and continue to support it. n/t

[alfredo]

89. What's so wrong with trying? You want us to give up?

[antigop]

98. You can try all you want. Nobody is stopping you. I'll spend my time on something else. n/t

[R_M]

66. Thanks

[Hosnon]

12. Awesome. THIS is the kind of strategy that works and gets things done.

The mighty dollar usually gets things done quicker.

Edit: Less categorical language.

[antigop]

2. Hate to tell you this, but-- I think this is the business "solution" to healthcare

http://www.hrpolicy.org/initiatives/nha_1.asp

[papau]

28. AOL's co-founder Case is running an insurance agency getting commissions on health insurance sales -

It might be possible to save a few dollars just by avoiding the commission cost - if they would rebate it - which they won't.

These folks are not for real - but you have to love a con job - I guess.

[rug]

3. Yeah, they lined right up behind Social Security in 1933.

[liberal N proud]

4. Just need to prove to them that it will be a savings for them

Healthy employees= better employees
If everyone had equal and complete access to health care and wellness activities companies are going to have less absenteeism due to illness.

Simply put if people can go to the doctor before or as soon as they get sick, they will miss less work and be more productive. That equals dollars in the pockets of the corporation or business.

[alfredo]

6. Michael Moore needs to do what Gore is doing, but put more

time into talking to business groups.

[liberal N proud]

8. You can sell anything to big business if you can show them it will save money

ROI: Return on investment is what they look at with nearly every decision they make.
Cost savings
Productivity improvements
Reduction in inventory
anything that cost less and less absenteeism saves money for any company, you would think they would all be driving this bus.
It would also mean for may large companies that do offer health care that they would no longer need an administrator just for that. Most companies have outsourced that position but it still is a cost to the business.

[antigop]

9. PLEASE READ: I think the business groups have their own solution in mind -- link here

http://www.hrpolicy.org/initiatives/nha_1.asp

[alfredo]

24. But there will always be those who put ideology above all.

[KharmaTrain]

7. The Health Care Boogie Man

The group I think that should take the lead on this issue is the AMA...the doctors, who have been shoved out of the diagnosis business by insurance company bean counters.

There's also the long-time right wing meme about how employee health insurance is a luxuary not a necessity or requirement. I worked for many employers who found every way in the book to avoid putting someone on the health plan or cutting back coverage when there was a buck to be saved. This mindset thrives in corporate boardrooms...and see universal health care as a pain, not a right. For some, health care packages are a perk...or bargaining chip. Also most disconnect on how a universal plan saves them in the long-run as they're living on today's stock price and their portfolio value.

And that leads to a problem with how the government,insurance, big pharma and some physicians enjoy a tremendous advantage by the current system. Play with the big boys and a researcher can find himself with a $2 million dollar grant or keep the costs down and the insurance company will throw you a bone...a consultation or some other "consideration". There's billions made each year on drug patents, expert testimony, product endorsements and stock prices.

Universal health care will only succede when the government gets out of funding the healthcare welfare system that rewards the corporations and uses that money on individual care.

[NashVegas]

22. The Trouble Is The Shareholders

Some of the same people holding stock in GM are also holding in HCA.

[Nite Owl]

10. That sounds very logical

but the other side of the business thought is as long as people need their job to get the healthcare they have the upper hand. No matter how much an employee hates his job or how he is treated he will think many times about leaving and take a lower wage if he will lose the coverage for his family. I think what they want to do is make the plans cheaper and cover less.

[Nay]

11. I think business has a love/hate relationship with universal health

care. On the one hand, employer-based health care is expensive and a pain to administer. On the other hand, a lot of employers know that many of their good employees would leave IN AN INSTANT if they were all of a sudden covered by universal health care. I personally would leave my job tomorrow, and I bet I'm not the only one.

And, of course, there's always the fact that there are tons of businesses out there who owe their existence to the crappy health care "system" we have now -- all the insurance companies, medical billers, big pharma, etc. etc.

[ThoughtCriminal]

27. I agree

The threat of losing insurance benefits gives abusive bosses a lot of power. The higher prices that the self employed and small businesses pay help maintian loyalty to big corps that get better rates.

[libertypirate]

13. You want business on your side talk about ROI

return on investment....

I have been thinking about about the overloaded costs of our system. There are more hidden costs then we may recognize.

Lets talk about what would be less of a problem with a universal system.

Would our soldiers have problems receiving care?

More people would seek treatment for minor issues, rather than wait until it becomes a major problem.

Insurance rates across the board would decline non-medical, no longer responsible for paying emergency medical expenses.

Doctors could once again focus their efforts on fixing you, instead of working the insurance system to get paid.

It could be paid for completely by, taxing all war profit at an absurd rate because isn't absurd to profit from building what is meant only to kill and maim on a mass scale.

As I see it a system that denies a person help when it has such ability does not intend to provide life liberty and the ability to pursue happiness, for those it denies. Hence, it puts an unconstitutional burden on those with the least economic power. The question is do we believe that economics determines liberty? The current system you get what you can afford, or what your insurance is willing to pay. If you can only afford crap insurance you don't get the liberties of someone who pays cash.

Profit as the motivation factor for health services is recipe for those who want profit, to burden those who want service.

[Hidden Stillness]

15. ..And We Can End Drug Addiction by Giving Drug Dealers Subsidies, Too!...

If your approach is to appeal to their selfish greed, and "approve" of it, then you will find no answer to their next selfish move, which is just to outsource the whole operation to a Third World area where the people can be completely abused, and there are no anti-polution regulations of any kind. There is no limit to their greed and selfishness; they will not just "be nice" and end it there. Shift the costs one day, move the plant to India and cut you out, the next. No, I think what we as a society need to do is just pass legislation that will enforce these things as a matter of course--like pensions used to be, like minimum wage and number-of-hours-worked laws--they will live under the law like the rest of us have to do, and the people who are abused by the corporation will then have recourse. Quit promising them candy and other treats if they will just please, please, be nice to us, once, please? They just recently tried to get out of the minimal (for them) tax for the richest estates in the world, a tax which they do not even notice the payment/loss of, to the potential great damage of the whole National economy, and did not give a rat's ass about that consequence; I think it is long past time to stop crawling to them. Give them orders, starting with making the media the people's property again. These are the people who refuse to this day to pay women equally, no matter how "bad the PR." They will not do anything until they are forced.

[alfredo]

21. They wouldn't be in business if they didn't have a touch of

"selfish greed." I don't buy into the slippery slope/dominoes argument.

When demanding anything, we need allies. One voice will not be heard.

[papau]

19. business sector is at war with itself over single payer - insurance co's vs auto companies n/t

n/t

[yurbud]

23. if Dems had the guts to go all out on single payer, they could get EVERY other business on board

Walmart would love to look like the good guy on something.

Okay, that might be a stretch, but OTHER businesses...

[upi402]

26. Business is NEVER on our side really

Just would like us to think so.

[chaska]

29. I seriously doubt business will support non-insurance universal health care. Here's why...

Business has been trying for decades now to privatize ... EVERYTHING. To advocate for the gov't to nationalize an industry - I just don't see it happening. They support their own, even if not in the same industry.

Also... Insurance will lose lots of money should we kick them out of healthcare. They will be wanting to make up for that lost revenue. I'd be very surprised if they didn't go up on their rates in other areas of the insurance business. This will of course negatively affect the non-insurance corporate bottom line.

I'm just brainstorming, but hey when has business ever been a friend to the left? Have pigs sprouted wings and I didn't hear about it?

Regardless, I refuse to support (or even participate in) any future healthcare system that includes the insurance industry or any other non-gov't entity. It's all or nothing (all or revolt, more like) for me.

[JacquesMolay]

30. Small business will actually be the enemy ...

... polling has consistently shown that small businessmen/women are opposed to universal health care. I'm guessing the higher taxation it would entail would eat into their own businesses some way or another.

[many a good man]

31. Only if they're not offering their employee insurance

It's win-win if they are already subsidizing employee health care. If they're not, then they get hit with collecting the tax out of employee pay checks, making it seem like they are paying them lower salaries.

[Vinca]

43. That doesn't make sense.

The vast majority of small business owners I know can't afford to provide health benefits to their employees. Until the numbers are crunched, no one knows how much taxes would or would not go up. If you take out profit and those $100,000,000 CEO salaries and end a certain war of choice, we'll probably end up paying less than what we pay in total now (taxes plus insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays and the 20% insurance doesn't cover if you actually have to use the lousy policy).

[newportdadde]

32. I think would actually prefer Health Savings Accounts(which are terrible).

National health care which would take away their cost of health care would help but it might mean more taxes for them or our 2/3 consumer and debt driven economy.

So the ultimate for them are these bogus Health Savings Accounts were they 'contribute' a sum and then you have to save out of your own check and then buy yourself your own personal policy.. not having any of the power of collective bargaining. As a bonus big business gets your HSA money invested in their stocks.

I believe the only reason we aren't looking at HSA right now is that the Democratic Party took over in 06.

[OzarkDem]

62. HSA's are tax shelters for wealthy people

they're not affordable or realistic for people earning less than $500,000 per year. If you think the average worker at McDonalds is going to save up enough money to cover the cost of, say, cancer care, you're delusional.

They also don't provide "universal" coverage, only works if you have a job, doesn't help if you are catastrophically ill and can't work.

[mmonk]

38. Some businesses aren't smart enough to figure it out

due to ideology. But yes, a national system would lift a huge financial and administrative burden off them and make them more competitive. It would help main street and small business as well. But you can blame the US Chamber of Commerce and the NFIB for this problem.

[Recursion]

39. It's why Toyota has such a labor cost advantage over GM

Toyota can pay a Japanese worker more than GM and still have it end up costing less because Toyota isn't responsible for the worker's health care.

[BlooInBloo]

46. You can forget that right now. They will NEVER be on our side.

[antigop]

53. Agreed. They have their own plan which they will continue to support. n/t

[goodgd_yall]

57. This country started off on the wrong foot with health care

The insurance companies and HMOs are profiting from the system as is and they will not give up the status quo. I've been for "socialized medicine" (booga-booga) for the past 35 years and the old arguments have not changed; we don't even say "socialized medicine" any more because of the fears that idea evoked. I would like to think the times are a-changing around this, but, when I think of the consequences of a heath care system without the insurance companies and price controls on the pharmaceutical companies---2 of the changes that need to happen---I am brought back to reality and pessimism. Too many fat cats have too much to lose.

[CTyankee]

58. Evivva, Alfredo! You have hit the nail on the head. Business will

take the lead and the Congress and our new President will follow dutifully. It shall be done, I truly believe.

I'm so glad someone has posted this on DU. I've been waiting...

[alfredo]

59. Thanks. Sometimes we have to form coalitions with those we don't like, or

neuter their opposition.

[OzarkDem]

61. Businesses have already been in charge

that's why we have the current mess. Our current for-profit system was created by business and employers. You can no longer trust them to do the right thing or develop good long term health care policy. It runs counter to their business ethics.

If someone has something good to offer, fine, but its a myth that we need a buy in from the business world. They won't bear the cost of it, taxpayers will. Businesses may employ taxpayers, but they have no right to control the choices they make for health care reform.

[alfredo]

63. No we don't have to buy into their plan, but we do have to find

businesses that buy into our ideas. Some will, some won't.

[antigop]

65. And the major corporations (ones with the most money) HAVE THEIR OWN PLAN n/t

[alfredo]

71. this is getting nowhere. You can continue with a defeatist attitude,

I will continue to fight.

[antigop]

78. No, it's a realistic attitude. The corporate sector will not support us. Spend your time

on something that might actually produce results. That's what I am doing.

[alfredo]

80. I'm not saying we should just concentrate on business.

[antigop]

82. Geez, your OP said "We need to get the business sector on our side" n/t

[alfredo]

84. Yes, get as many as we can. Every supporter is important.

[antigop]

87. Geez! What part of "Corporations have their own solution" don't you understand? n/t

[alfredo]

91. I understand. http://www.bluefund.com/

The business world is not monolithic. There are companies that have the same values as us. They are the companies we should approach.

[antigop]

93. Fine. Do whatever you want. Just don't expect the corporate business sector to support you. n/t

[alfredo]

95. You never know until you try.

[antigop]

99. Then go ahead. No one is stopping you. I'll spend my time on something else. n/t

[OzarkDem]

60. No we don't

We won't get good public health care policy if we let them guide it, period. They're not going to pay for it anyway, taxpayers will bear the cost.

Fuck em.

[CTyankee]

70. I don't suggest that big business and no one else "guide" the plan.

However, business people know that Japan has universal health care AND their auto industry makes money. And money is the bottom line always. It is not a "either/or" proposition; more like a "both/and." Of course the tax payers pay for it but I don't see the Japanese people bitching about their health care and demanding a U.S. type of health care!

[alfredo]

85. Who says they should guide it. If they want to join and support us fine, if

not well be ready to rumble.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

69. Big 3 automakers already have met with Dubya about the per-car "$1200 albatross"

(Lee Iacocca's term) of healthcare costs. But Dubya and his handlers are not listening. They prefer a "Fantasy Island" healthcare "reform" built around "tort reform" and even more tax giveaways that don't help the uninsured or the barely insured.

From the January 2007 Health Care Financial Management, via http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3257/is_1_61/ai_n17114330

"Big business, where are you? Health care is again on the table in Washington

... Clinton and the health insurance industry parted ways over the issue of "adverse selection," the gamesmanship played by one insurance company over another in trying to enroll only healthy people. The more profitable insurers would limit their exposure by simply not enrolling high-risk people, thereby maximizing their profits. Almost 400 pages of the Clinton plan's nearly 1,200-page draft law discussed regulating the process to ensure that each participating plan would cover a reasonable share of the high-risk population. Absent some controls, many sicker people and many in the high-risk pool would be unable to afford coverage. The burden would be shifted to government programs as insurers cherry-picked the profitable sector in the market place. ...

So who did support the Clinton health plan? Big American global business. U.S. companies now compete in the world market with companies from other industrialized nations that have national health systems. Those countries treat health care as a "societal cost" borne across the economic spectrum, not imposed primarily on employers as an additional cost of their products and services. When Lee Iacocca was president of Chrysler Corporation in 1993 and 1994, he testified regularly in Washington before various task forces organized by First Lady Hillary Clinton to help develop the Clinton health plan. Iacocca argued that the auto industry needed government action if it was to compete against its foreign competitors. Every Chrysler car, he argued, cost $1,200 more than cars made by his German and Japanese competitors. That $1,200 paid for the cost of health insurance for the workers who built the car. The nation rejected the Clinton plan, and the problems continued. What is Chrysler Corporation today? It is Daimler-Chrysler, a German company, and America continues to lose ground in the world marketplace for its products and services.

After the November 2006 congressional elections, the Bush administration took notice of this competitive situation and held a long-awaited meeting with the CEOs of the Big Three auto companies. Automakers had been pushing for such a meeting ever since the president suggested in January 2006 that their main problem was that they needed to make "a relevant product." Relevant products, however, were not on the agenda. During the hour-long meeting, the auto companies offered a litany of woes, the main one being the cost of health care. Healthcare costs are a crushing burden for automakers. At the meeting, the automakers offered one concrete idea. They suggested the establishment of a large insurance pool, presumably government-funded, to cover the small percentage of their employees and retirees who have chronic illnesses. Five percent of beneficiaries are responsible for 50 percent of their healthcare costs. And the automakers--as well as other large employers--want to be relieved
of that burden...."

[alfredo]

100. Sounds like the idea of universal health care can be sold if framed

properly and if we don't allow the insurance companies to define the debate like they did to Hillary's plan.