>I also think there is a lot of room for discussion about what "universal
>health care" should look like. You cannot get this if it there aren't
serious
>proposals being offered.
There are serious proposals being offered. Try HR 676, a bill which uses the Labor Party's funding mechanism almost entirely (except I don't think it provides what we call a Just Transition for displaced insurance company workers).
The serious proposals won't go anywhere without a political vehicle not hitched to insurance and drug company cash. That's why it's the top program of the Labor Party, not the Democratic Party. For the LP's program, see www.justhealthcare.org
>You will not get this if you think doctors should
>lead the charge (Physicians for a National Health Plan do a lot of good
>work but they make compromises based on their trying to organize a specific
>group--the level of autonomy they are willing to give doctor's reproduces
much
>of what is wrong with current practices).
I don't think doctors should lead the charge, I think unions should lead the charge. Nor do I think doctors have been leading the charge, except among other doctors. Also, you can't lead the charge anywhere unless you talk about costs to the insured, rather than going on about the uninsured all the time, which is what many health care 'reform' groups do. That's a losing strategy which makes the vast insured majority grateful they have any coverage at all, no matter how expensive or illusory.
Jenny Brown