Editor's note: continuing the ongoing content migration to escape Facebook's absurd anarchist and antifascist bans, I'm re-posting this bit of "short burst micro-analysis" here so it'll be somewhere on the internet even if the Zuckerbear eats me. Sometimes you don't need a lot of words to explain why a myopic and disingenuous argument is bullsh*t and that was certainly the case with this September 18th, 2019 post about a UAW strike and employer-provided healthcare.
This is a surprisingly candid article about Medicare for All and Union-bargained health benefits that was posted under the teaser "Did General Motors just make the case for Medicare-for-all?"
The simple one word answer to this question is "yes" but I'd also like to point out that in Vox's desperate effort to remain "balanced" they perpetuated the pro-business argument that there is no evidence that reduced health care costs lead to higher wages - while simultaneously noting that "Companies use health care as leverage to negotiate down wage increases and other benefits. That’s why some of the biggest unions in the country support Medicare-for-all — or at least moving in that direction."
As anyone who has ever been to Canada, or the UK, or most of Europe, or any other country civilized enough to have both public healthcare and the right to organize will tell you however, this phenomenon exists only in America - everywhere else on the planet, unions are able to negotiate for either higher wages, or more benefits (think dental, eyeglasses, etc) in lieu of company sponsored health insurance.
Naturally, longtime observers of the American health insurance debate will recognize this willingly obtuse myopia - many of the arguments that have been used to deny Americans reasonable (and free) public healthcare options are firmly rooted in a type of American exceptionalism that refuses to acknowledge the dozens and dozens of countries that have tackled the problem of public healthcare without suddenly transforming into Stagflation Argentina.
- nina illingworth
