>I think your maximalist demand sucks. It doesn't say anything about tax
>fairness in funding-- a single payer system funded by a sales tax would
>fulfill your criteria. Why the fetish for "public funding" over SEIU's
>core criteria
>http://www.americansforhealthcare.org/action/hcv.cfm
>which spells out full coverage and fair financing, while leaving the details
>open?
Wow, that's really something Nathan. When I forwarded Fitch one of your recent posts, his comment was that there should be a word for taking right-wing positions for ostensibly left-wing reasons. I'm thinking "Newmanize" might be a good candidate for that word.
Let's review the reasons why single-payer is a good idea. It's universal. That means it covers everyone. That makes it just. It also has much lower administrative costs than a fragmented system. That makes it efficient. It's conceptually simple - that makes it politically comprehensible, unlike a patchwork system. You could even argue that on balance single-payer funded by a sales tax would be progressive, since if you want to examine the influence of fiscal policy on distribution you should look at spending as well as revenues, and SP would undoubtedly help the working class immensely.
Why the "fetish for public funding"? Because, like I said, it's just, efficient, and simple to describe. I thought that should be obvious to anyone who calls himself a socialist or a social democrat. It's extremely odd that you should call this a fetish, unless you're trying to find some way to work for Hillary Clinton in 2008.
Doug