On 10/26/2013 06:18 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
You just don't seem able to get it. People are loss-averse. That means people worry more about losing what they have, instead of worrying about some crack brain future savings theory like single payer. I can tell you've never been in a union. Go figure.
Au contraire, Pierre. I was a member of the AFM: the American Federation of Musicians. It was run by a bunch of has been musicians who liked carrying a brief case instead of an instrument case. That union didn't adapt well with the times and is pretty much a has been in most of America.
"What made single payer impossible is the fact that tens of millions of voters have employer-sponsored insurance that they basically like, and they would freak out if you told them it was being replaced by a government-run national health-care program."
And that they believe is "free". When you are an employer and do your budgets for hiring, part of the expense of your employee is the health care. IOW, you could play the employee more without that benefit. It also tethers them to a company that some workers hate. With single payer that is taken out of the equation.
You really liked being fleeced by insurance companies?
