>As I've said, in practice a move towards single payer health care is less
>likely to look like Sweden and more likely to look like Social Security-- a
>system with minimal benefits and which excludes large chunks of the
>population.
I almost let this slip by without comment. What's wrong with SS? It could be more generous than it is, but it's near-universal, immensely popular, and largely successful at reducing elderly poverty. It's about the only welfare state area where the US isn't a total disgrace. The contrast with the shrinking and expensive private pension system is stark. If we had a publicly funded health insurance scheme as successful as SS, we'd be immeasurably better of.
And while we're at it, Medicare ain't so bad either. Conyers' idea of expanding it to everyone looks pretty good, considering the alternatives.
I don't get your counterfactual here. Single could be as bad as Social Security? What's the alternative? 401(k)s?
Doug