I've often wondered why a single-payer Health insurance plan would be a hard sell to the Republican Party. When I had a company in the 90's, Health insurance was our #3 cost (behind salaries and taxes). So why would a major clip to Big Business's expense ledger be a tough deal to cut?
I mean, damn. The only explanation is it must be a some kind of Free Market(tm) dogma thing.
Even so, I've wondered how long dogma could defy gravity levitating against Corporate self-interest. Today, the NYT is the first to report that the laws of (selfish) nature cannot indefinitely be violated.
The NYT article "U.S. Backs Benefit Cut at 65 in Retiree Plans" reports on a ruling by the EEOC that Corporations can eliminate Health benefits for Retirees once they qualify for Medicare.
The policy, set forth in a new regulation, allows employers to establish two classes of retirees, with more comprehensive benefits for those under 65 and more limited benefits — or none at all — for those older.
Quoting further:
Gerald M. Shea, assistant to the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., also saw merit in the new rule. "Given the enormous cost pressures on employer-sponsored health benefits," Mr. Shea said, "we support the flexibility reflected in the rule as a way to maximize our ability to maintain comprehensive coverage for active and retired workers."
Interesting no mention of the issue how Nationalized Health Insurance would improve the competitive position of US companies against Foreign competition. Especially since Medical coverage costs continue to escalate at 2X the rate of inflation.
Imagine the pop-pop-popping of pinheads at the AEI & other right wingnut think tanks. Capitalism in conflict with free-market ideology! Oh the horror of it all...