Even the most basic pragmatic politics would necessitate a strong Democratic call for universal health insurance coverage (strong majorities in public opinion polls for over 84 years). Why Gore 2000 chose the path of least resistance while straddling boths sides of the middle of the fence in the middle of the road is for him to answer. A good Democrat would know how to promise universal health care to get elected and then talk about compromise and how horrible the opposition is once elected.
Health Care though is one of the few clear reasons in my estimation to choose Democrats over Republicans as George Quincy Bush is an unwavering supporter of Medical Savings Accounts (whereas, Democrats of course waveringly think they should be further studied). MSA's are a very dangerous idea because they are very good for most people and destructive for the sickest and poorest. Why subsidize those who get sick in a given year when that money could be earning you interest? The destruction of the social aspects of insurance has been the overarching theme of health care changes in the last 15 years and very few talk about it (well, I do in the limited opportunities I get).
Peace and salubrity,
Jim
At 11:49 AM 8/16/00, Max Sawicky wrote:
>The Dems are laying down a pretty large marker in the
>Convention, if anyone is noticing, namely to provide health
>insurance for all. They've all been hammering away at this.
>As far as I can tell, it's something new -- the promise.
>Obviously the deed is something else altogether.
(Interviewer:) Your comments bring up a lot of class issues. Are you a Marxist? (Stephen J. Raphael:) Well I suppose I am a bit of a Karl Marxist. I am also a bit of a Groucho Marxist. But mostly I'm a Bernard Marxist.