What if a company like GM just said, "To hell with it. We can't do it anymore."? Ignoring the collective bargaining aspects of such a decision for a moment, I've been on the management side of the equation where even though unions retained benefits, non-represented employees got the shaft (in both layoffs and benefit cuts).
So, one of two things happens in the future - there's a major resurgence in union memebership, or the GOP benefactors (big business) start lobbying hard for the government to pick up the tab on universal coverage for everyone.
Are advocates of universal healthcare and big business strange bedfellows on this issue? No, not at all. This is actually how good change happens - when competing interests can agree on a common goal, all of a sudden potential resolutions move forward.
I don't know if any of the "solutions" offered in the comments on the Daily Kos thread would ultimately come to fruition, but some of the ideas might finally be a place to start a reasoned discussion.
From Lansing State Journal:
General Motors Corp.'s chairman and chief executive officer said his company's health care costs worry him more than other problems, including the automaker's slipping market share and the strength of its competition.
"I don't feel good about health care costs. I don't feel good about what it does to our profitability," Wagoner said at the North American International Auto Show Sunday.
Analysts say he's got reason to fret.
With health care costs rising by double-digit percentages annually, health care has emerged as a major concern for all industries. But GM's case is more dire: The company supports the health needs of 170,200 active workers and 430,000 retirees...
