3 ms·
In the early 20th century, both Canadians and U.S. citizens formed unions to push for better living/working conditions in their country. The difference with re
by bduerst 10y ago
In the early 20th century, both Canadians and U.S. citizens formed unions to push for better living/working conditions in their country.
The difference with regard to healthcare is that Canadians convinced their government to provide it, while U.S. citizens convinced their employers.
This was fine for most of the century in the U.S., but towards the end and more recently leading up to the passing of ACA, all but the most zealous unions were broken up and employers were providing healthcare less and less.
Unlike the industrial, early 20th century where conditions were horrible for almost the entire working class, we now have some people who are gainfully employed with healthcare and some who are not. Consolidating these two groups to agree on how to provide healthcare for everyone is difficult, because those who "got theirs" don't see it as a problem until they lose it.
- gleb 10y agoMostly it was the government regulation that made employer insurance popular in US. Accident of history: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114045132 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1140451...
- rgbrenner 10y agowhile U.S. citizens convinced their employers. During WWII the government imposed wage controls.. but fringe benefits did not count as wages. And with a shortage in labor because of the war, employers used health insurance and other fringe benefits to attract workers. The unions jumped onboard later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#The_rise_of_employer-sponsored_coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United...
- tehlike 10y agoNot entirely, right? Employer provided healthcare is an artifact of ww2 where employee compensation was practically frozen. Employers looked for other ways to create competitive compensation, and turned to healthcare.