One of the main reasons employers want to keep healthcare private; enormous leverage against labor, organized or not…
Isn’t it illegal for an employer to retaliate against striking unionized employees?
Laws protect business, not workers.
yes but the law has no teeth. The punishment is a strongly worded letter from a judge and a fine that is cheaper than paying an employee.
a General Strike is needed
This is precisely why public, non-profit, university hospitals are always superior.
For profit hospitals are a historic aberration.
That is probably not true if you look across the history of human civilization. I agree that it’s a recent development vis a vis growth in this area.
The observation was intended as applying to the industrial era, since such is the time within which emerged hospitals as we now know them.
However, I feel the same generalization holds more broadly. Hospitals have not been instituted to enrich an owner.
There’s a reason that hospital and hospitality are such related words. They were originally more like inns with physicians. You paid for a room and received treatment in it. Profit was certainly part of the picture.
There are many variations of the theme throughout history that may be called hospitals, but any large facility for housing the ill would have tended to have no private owner. Doctors visiting the homes of patients has been more common historically than patients visiting homes or offices of doctors.
Now that’s the service I wish still existed.
One problem is that as technology has been advanced to treat health conditions, care for individuals has been forgotten in its basic essence of being humane and social.
Even more reason to strike. Issue 1 in the demands: we still get healthcare when we strike
Once you cross a certain line, you might as well be suggesting burning down the house and building a new one.
I wish they make their own hospital with blackjack and hookers.
America, fuck yeah!
Land of the free.
Is there a way to view this article without subscribing?
Open it on Mozilla and choose reader view?
Like most of whatever parent company or crappy site interface some mid-tier cities have, if you reload the page a few times it should give you the option to view? Maybe you got the adock popup, same thing, there is usually an option out. I’m not a subscriber.
That’s obscene. I hope the nurses teach them their place.
Keep going. Fuck them.
Healthcare can stay private as far as I’m concerned, but it certainly shouldn’t be provided by the employer. Just give me more cash and let me buy my own.
The profit motive definitely deforms the structure of medicine and medical services.
A guarantee for coverage, with most providers being private, is the essence of the systems in many countries, and is far better than the system in the US.
Yet, even considered globally, our world has been made bleaker by the domination of healthcare, for development, manufacturing, and distribution of technology and processes through private corporations, the features of such systems including monopolies, patents, and private investment.
We might try to imagine medicinal systems being structured and practiced as a public good, emphasizing human life as having the highest value.
deleted by creator
Not trying to say this is good by any means, but isn’t that typical for strikes?
It might be the irony of the situation more than anything.
Hospitals want other employers to provide health coverage.
They also dont want a lawsuit because a sick employee couldnt afford healthcare and had no sick days left, so he went to work and infected a dozen vulnerable patients with a disease that turned deadly for them.
Has any court ever reached a judgment based on the premise that healthcare is a right?
Employers have a lot of options. They can threaten to fire people in large numbers, they can threaten various things, but by specifically threatening to cut off health care, their trying to put the workers to a life or death decision. In other words, this particular approach is definitely immoral and unjustifiable.
