On 2/9/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> >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
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jim Devine
Bust Big Brother Bush!