The pro-business case for socialized medicine

I am a relatively recent convert to the idea that we should have socialized medicine. The trick is justifying it on more than humanitarian grounds, and answering the real critique about whether it would degrade the quality of care. I want to address the first point, on the grounds of economic development. Here's a perfect case study: Toyota's competitive advantage in the global marketplace over GM. Read on...

 

Imagine how much stronger General Motors would be if it launched three additional new-model programs every year, each costing about $1 billion.

It could, if it didn't have to pay for its retirees' health care.

That is one of the most fundamental differences between GM and Toyota Motor Corp. GM pays for the health care of 339,000 retirees - and the number grows every year. In contrast, Toyota pays for fewer than 3,000 retirees' health care in Japan, a number that remains fairly stable.

That difference gives Toyota and other Japanese carmakers a massive advantage over their American rivals.

"The cost of health care in the U.S. is making American businesses extremely uncompetitive vs. our global counterparts," says GM CEO Rick Wagoner.

Toyota and other Japanese carmakers benefit from a national health care plan that reduces its obligations to retirees to almost nothing.

[...]

Toyota pays health care costs for its employees in Japan in the form of premiums for medical insurance. But it does not continue to pay those costs for retirees. Former employees of Nissan Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co. also turn to the Japanese government for health care coverage.

The American Big 3 pay - and pay and pay - for their retirees' health care.

GM covers the health care costs of approximately 125,000 active employees and 339,000 retirees. Health care costs for those retirees amounted to approximately $3.6 billion last year.

That's more than two-thirds of the $5.2 billion GM spent on health care and medical-insurance premiums last year. GM also contributed about $9 billion in 2004 to a trust fund set up to pay for health care costs.

In 2004, Ford Motor Co. spent $2.0 billion on health care for U.S. retirees.

The Chrysler group last year spent $1.3 billion on retirees' health care.

$1,525 per vehicle

GM says that its payments for retirees' health care - more than what the company spent for steel - add about $1,525 to the cost of every vehicle the company sells.

In contrast, Toyota must contribute to health insurance payments for only about 64,500 active workers in Japan.

Removing the burden of employer-funded healthcare would free up enormous capital - and that would be a rising tide that floats all boats higher. I think that this is ultimately the key to answering the second critique about quality of care.