>Or at the state level. Or any other level.
>
>My argument is that this can be won only under radically changed
>political conditions, and that the change necessary would _not_ be a
>smooth line but a jump. Hence there will _never_ be a time when it is
>(a) possible to win single payer at the state (or national) level but
>(b) _not_ possible to win a national health service.
>
>I've not been able to dream up a good metaphor for this, but try the
>following.
>
>You are 10 feet underwater. You need either to get to the surface _or_
>find a breathing tube 10 ft long which will allow you to breathe at 10
>ft under. But all the breathing tubes are not only on land, they are a
>quarter of a mile away from the shore. Hence the power to get a
>breathing tube is _also_ the power to get out of the water into the air.
>Single payer is like that breathing tube. It is as far out of our reach
>as is a national health service.
More exotica out of the Cox theory of history. Don't bother fighting for single-payer - it's hopeless. Of course there's no possibility the fight itself might change political conditions. We just have to wait until That Magic Moment, the transformative jump, arrives.
I was just thinking earlier that one of the things I like about the Working Families Party's approach these days is that they've been organizing around specific issues that can make a real difference in actual lives - raising the minimum wage, reducing drug sentences. At the same time, these campaigns build institutions and consciousness. I think they're moving toward a state single-payerish scheme. Should they give up?
Doug