----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
-Oh, and it was true in the early days that single-payer campaigns -were silent on citizenship status. No longer. The Calif bill -explicitly says "residents," not citizens, and the national Conyers -bill does as well <http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm>. -So, Nathan, ready to sign on, or still for "incremental change"?
The California initiative didn't exclude undocumented immigrants either-- until late in the game the leadership revised the draft when the immigrant-baiting started.
This is the problem with the romance of "maximalist" demands-- it's all about the demand with no analysis of likely political developments later on. At times, I'm all for maximalist demands, but there are many maximalist demands that actually set you up for worse results in the final deal. There are less maximalist demands that are more defensible-- they are a better "trench" in warfare terms to defend your position.
My maximalist demand is that everyone in the country get decent health care coverage. Single payer is just one method and I don't fetishize means. At the moment, it looks like a piss-poor unlikely means to get to the real maximalist goals, so why support it.
The health care strategy that makes most sense these days is to state the goal and push on the easiest means these days, from employer mandates like an expanded Maryland bill and expanding child coverage massively as was just done in Illinois.
-- Nathan Newman