Came across this article by Malcom Gladwell in the New Yorker the other day. Seems to make a pretty compelling point about universal healthcare without really framing the issue in the usual ways. It is a long read, but what are some opinions of this article? It seems to make a ton of sense to me.
He captures the problem of heritage benefit plans that penalize companies that do the right thing.
He captures the problem of not enough workers at GM to pay for the greater number of retirees (the dependency ratio).
His solution, however, is only a way to delaying the problem. The same problem that GM faces with its retirees is the problem facing Social Security and Medicare - not enough workers paying in for the number of people who will be taking out.
Yes, having nationalized health and pension would save GM et al from their old promises. We would simply shift the burden to all US workers, and STILL have the problem.
Unless, of course, we are willing to let in enough working immigrants to keep the ratios going. The article states that Africa has the workers that Europe needs to keep its dependency ratio stable. For America it is the nations South of the border that have the workers that we need to balance the books.
If we stick to this model.
What is never discussed is the problem is short term. The retirees are old and dying off, The last few years the auto companies make huge profits off SUVs and trucks. Profit per vehicle was enormous. They did not pay their pension shortages. This crisis was sought by the industry and it seeks to get bailed out. Years of companies fighting for nationalization of medical,care is now softening. They want to use the taxpayers to cover their mismanagement.