Nathan Newman wrote:
>SEIU resisted single
>payer plans as long as they were impartial and ignored immigrant worker
>needs, but then endorsed a single payer plan that covers them.
-The SEIU's health care project, Americans for Healthcare, says -nothing about single-payer. They're now pushing Maryland-style -legislation, which is a pretty half-assed approach.
So let's see -- various local unions -- which are the ones who control the health care funds and benefit from the supposed corruption Fitch discusses -- support single payer health plans where they think it's feasible, while the national SEIU office, which doesn't control those health care funds directly, promote a diversity of feasible proposals reflecting a national organization operating in multiple states with different politics.
Yep, sounds like an organization that makes all decisions based purely on self-interested goals of union leader corruption.
Couldn't actually reflect honest political evaluations of what politics are feasible in different situations. Like opposition to single payer at the national level in 1991 couldn't reflect an honest evaluation that, given GOP opposition to health care reform, more moderate proposals had better likelihood of passage.
I might even agree that a more radical stance would have been better by the union movement, but that doesn't require an assumption of personal corruption to accept differences in political viewpoints and tactics.
Nathan Newman