Big business and Single Payer
I'm not so sure that the Fortune 500 is adamantly opposed to a single-payer system. While that may be their ideological position, there is a solid business case to be made for "single payer".
Big business' motivation is to earn as much profit as possible. The lower their costs, the more money they make, and the more succesful they will be in the global economy. As of now, we're not doing so well competing in the flat world; in large part because our labor costs are significantly higher. When Caterpillar competes with Volvo Diesel, GM with Toyota, Deere with Hyundai, USAirways with Lufthansa, and GE with Siemens, the US companies are hobbled by health care costs that range from two to five times higher than the competition.
(In the case of autos, GM's health care costs are already $1300 more than Toyota's...)
GM, Ford, and Chrysler execs have already gone to Washington with their "need a few bucks for health care" signs on and cups out, to no avail. The unions, including the big guys like the SEIU are starting to realize that employers just cannot afford to pay the benefits they negotiated for.
Ideology will be trumped by responsibility to shareholders. If employers hear of a plan that moves legacy and current health care costs off their balance sheets, they'll be on it like white on rice. Single payer, multi-payer, they won't care.
If single payer advocates want to win, they'll greatly aid their cause if they first evaluate the impact on corporate financials. Yes, the money will have to come from somewhere, but most corporations would be more than willing to pony up a big check today to get out from under future health care costs.
Also, today's "500" are increasingly global. They can see UHC systems at work and working in their overseas locations and on their travels, and their senior executive ranks are increasingly infused with individuals who grew up and prospered in single payer territory.
On the contra side, big biz (and their big labor partners) are invested in quid pro quo's hammered out over decades of bargaining and compensation positioning. These aren't easily dislocated.
Even going forward, "the bigs" have comparative advantages in attracting employees (and members) due to their relatively full coverage systems, and both sides benefit from the creative flexibility available in wrangling over plans (vs wrangling over raw dollars).
April 10, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must say I'm disappointed by the paucity of comment on this post.
Are all the geniuses of h/c reform too busy to go looking for allies?
April 11, 2007 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those conversations are taking place... behind the scenes. But we need a lot more of them. Every opportunity that arises to have such conversations should be embraced, even if you have to create those opportunities through your own initiatives.
April 11, 2007 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both Ron and Don's comments have merit -- yes, some of these conversations with business people are taking place but LOTS more need to be happening.
I was on a MA HC reform panel yesterday and gave the below article to the CEO of the state's largest business lobby group (A.I.M.) in addition to explaining the value of SP reform to the business community in my remarks.
Reach out to businesses by calling your local "Chamber of COmmerce" and request an opportunity to briefly speak at one of their monthly meetings.
Bring along the "Single Payer is Good for Business" article, (link below) and other materials to hand out. The article describes what was the Massachusetts scenario 2 years ago; the excruciatingly complicated and expensive reform option is what won out here in MA, let's hope that is not repeated in PA.
----
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07108/778752-109.stm
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 4/18/07, By Charlie Crystle
"Single-payer is good for business --
Rendell's health-care plan mainly would benefit private insurers at everyone else's expense
Last week, Gov. Ed Rendell told civic-minded health-care advocates to stop "wasting" their energy by supporting single-payer health insurance.
The diverse group had gathered to discuss the merits of two radically different approaches to solving the health-care crisis in Pennsylvania: Senate Bill 300 (The Family and Business Healthcare Security Act, a single-payer plan that would cover everyone), and Gov. Rendell's plan, which would require passage of 47 separate bills and is heavily backed by the health-insurance industry.
I support Senate Bill 300, and the energy I devote to getting all Pennsylvanians covered is not wasted. To the contrary: fighting for single-payer is fighting for the survival of our business community and economic stability..."
read full article; it's quite good.
Charlie Crystle is CEO of Mission Research Software in Lancaster, Pa. email him at charlie.crystle@missionresearch.com
April 19, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink