====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 19:57 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > It may be desired by "employers" but does it make sense from the > overall needs of the capitalist system for such a large proportion of > the GDP to be associated with health care? If this system was more > Spartan, it would find ways to reduce these costs to a minimum. > Insurance companies are basically parasitic. Of course, that's the > general drift of American capitalism. Aetna instead of infrastructure > renewal. By shifting more of the costs of health care to the workers, two things are accomplished. First, workers pay more, through mandated insurance, bigger deductibles and co-pays. This benefits the profiteers in the health field, and the employers who provide insurance. Secondly,by forcing the workers to pay more, the hope is that they will use the health care system less, driving down prices for hospitalization, drugs, etc. Taxing employer provided health insurance is part of this. Once plans hit the taxable amount, up go the deductibles and co-pays for the workers, to keep the plan below the taxable level. Just a note on whether employer based health insurance is a competitive problem. Employer based insurance has the beneficial effect of tying workers to their jobs, and making them very hesitant about things like strikes. A socialized health care system would take that monkey off the workers back, and heaven forbid US workers take after their French brothers and sisters, and start striking at the drop of a hat. Jon Flanders ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
