I suppose assassination is always a possibility. Yes, political forces 'conspired' to support someone other than Bernie. Politics exists. Bernie is a politician, he knows that. His failure to round up enough support isn't a conspiracy, it simply shows that Biden was better at politics than Bernie, at that time. Plus there is a certain amount of luck/chance involved as well. I think that last point is worth exploring. Is it not working for most people? Objectively, standard of living is pretty good in this country. It could be better, of course. Could be worse. But subjectively, how unhappy are people with the current system, and are they willing to give up stability for the promise of change? Obviously a certain number of Trump supporters are. But is the average suburban mom/dad? barfo
I just don't think that's accurate. Certainly it's not my experience. Companies would love to not have to screw around with health insurance. It's a huge time suck to negotiate / administer / deal with employee complaints etc. The competitive benefits are in the noise, it really isn't hard at all for a small company to offer big-company level health insurance. There are classes of companies that have financial reason to favor the existing system (for example, if you only hire people in their 20s, you probably have an advantage on rates currently vs. someone who only hires grandma and grandpa). But the grandma/grandpa company would equally favor M4A for the same reason. barfo
I am aware of the problem of money in politics. But a disembodied "they" in a conspiracy to do bad things .....
I don't think it's disembodied at all, though. Just look at the list of the top lobbyists and that's the list of the people who are making our laws. Those are the people and companies who are controlling our government... And it's not because they are evil. It's because they have a responsibility to their shareholders. They literally can't be responsible in the social sense because that would be bad for their shareholders in the short term.
But doesn't HR deal with that? You just pay an HR salary as a company and you no longer have to worry about it. I get what you're saying, I just think it's a much bigger hassle for smaller companies than larger, simply based on economies of scale. It was a huge hassle for the owner of the company I work for until we got large enough to hire an HR person. And our healthcare kinda sucked as a result... Now, it's never even much of a consideration and our healthcare and benefits are vastly improved. And the really big companies get insanely low rates due to having a larger, more diverse pool, so that's another built-in advantage.
HR employees are not free. It certainly is a bigger hassle, proportionally, for small companies. But it isn't a hassle that prevents them from existing (unless they are on the edge of non-viability anyway, in which case they aren't a threat to BigCorporate). No, their rates are not insanely low. It's a few percentage points lower. barfo
Prices to the employees are much lower for larger companies. No, it doesn't stop all new companies from existing, though you can bet it prevents many people from quitting and starting their own company. What it also does is prevents talent from leaving larger companies to go to smaller companies. These are all advantages that help large companies and they don't want to lose those advantages. Large companies like regulation that make it harder for smaller businesses to compete. Even if they like to complain about the regulations to their employees. And those big companies are owned by umbrella companies who also own media companies. And those big companies have advertising budgets that media companies need.
That's up to the company to decide. It's up to them how much they pay vs how much the employee pays. If the task of buying health insurance prevents you from starting your own company, you are probably better off being an employee. It's a pain in the ass, but there are many, many things about owning or running a business that are a pain in the ass. If a small company fails to acquire talent for that reason, they are doing it wrong. Sure, this just doesn't happen to be a significant one. Some big companies are part of a conglomerate that includes media companies, sure. Not a very big percentage though. barfo
These are a lot of reasons why large companies would prefer to support the current system rather than M4A. You can say they aren't big reasons, but together it is clearly more profitable and better for large corporation to have the current system with a more desperate and fearful work force. If we can agree that the current system is a huge pain in the ass for typical people then M4A would give employees far more leverage, there is no question about that. And large corporations want nothing to do with employees having more leverage.
I am still trying to figure out who told me Manchin is a moderate. I must be listening to wrong they Another thought. Read a column asserting Mike Pence, after four years of servile groveling, could not attend a Trump rally without heavy security. In fact his security detail would advise him not to attend at all because his life would be in danger. But he could attend a Biden rally and face not much worse than snide remarks.
Ok, let's hear the reasons. I think big business would be better off with a happier, healthier workforce. And I don't see evidence that the business community, overall, opposes M4A. There is, admittedly, a knee-jerk reaction on the part of many CEOs to support whatever the Republican party wants, because more CEOs are Rs than Ds. But that's politics not economics. But we can't agree on that. There's absolutely no evidence that formation of new ventures is being held back by the difficulty of acquiring health insurance, despite it being a pain. There is, conversely, plenty of evidence that people feel pretty free to form new ventures, and to quit their jobs when they feel the time is right. barfo
You are underestimating the power of brainwashing. First MSNBC brainwashed you that Manchin was a moderate, then they brainwashed you into thinking they didn't tell you that. And finally, they brainwashed you into thinking that you think that Manchin isn't a moderate, while actually you think what they told you to think. It's all quite diabolical. barfo
Wait. We can't agree that the current medical system is a hardship for most citizens? I think we can. That being the case, corporations will not want to give up that leverage. I believe that you are right. M4A would be better for everyone. But it would leave current established corporations with less leverage. That's not opinion. It's just how things are. For the same reason that slavery is not good for the country as a whole, but corporations and the elite still fought against freeing them. The same reasons they (corporations and elites) fight against raising minimum wage. Or any other common good that would actually benefit everyone.
There is, indeed, a vast conspiracy to leave things the way they are. That applies to pretty much everything, across the board. I blame the founding fathers. That said, I just don't buy the claim that the current healthcare system gives big companies significant leverage. I don't see any evidence it's true. barfo
Then you must be very sheltered from the suffering caused by our current healthcare system, and therefor the fear that people have of losing or even changing their employer provided healthcare.
I think those fears are unfounded for the average employee, if we are talking about changing jobs. I mean, you don't have to take a different job if they offer shit healthcare, just as you don't have to switch to a lower-wage employer. If we are talking about losing a job, then yes, losing the employer paid healthcare could be quite a big blow. But then, losing the paycheck is presumably an even bigger blow. So the employer has all the leverage they need over that unemployable-elsewhere employee without considering healthcare. I'm not saying it's a great situation that people lose healthcare if they lose their job. We agree it's not. But that's a different topic than whether big businesses have leverage over small businesses. barfo
All employer provided healthcare is not the same. They all work differently. Some cover things others don't. And many will tell you they cover things when called, but then deny you once you actually have to make a claim. Healthcare is every bit as important as salary for a great many people. Some people have planty of salary from one parent and the other provides the best insurance. It's a big deal. It's a lot of leverage over the employee. Like another salary.
That is true. I do see your point, but then if removing employer leverage over employees is the topic, then we could make all salaries the same. Or just pay everyone exactly the same amount regardless of whether they have a job. Or just outlaw employers altogether Again, we were discussing whether big employers had an advantage over small employers, not whether employers had leverage over employees. I will stipulate employers have leverage over employees. And vice versa, to some degree. barfo
Wait. I thought we were discussing why media and large corporations wouldn't support M4A? My answer is basically because M4A would cost them a ton of leverage and lost opportunity. People are better profit centers and easier to control if they are marginalized and feel less in control.
