All of which I agree with. Remember, my story about the 1994 single payer campaign comes from working on it. But festishing one method often means making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Not to pull the activist card, but I get a bit sick of being miscontrued on these issues when I've probably spent more hours actively working to pass a single payer law than most people on this list. My point is that people make reasonable judgements on what they think is possible and worth putting effort into. And a lot of people, maybe mistakenly, worry that if they push a more radical proposal, it will marginalize and undermine their efforts to get what is obtainable. Most of the time I disagree with such judgements, but not always, so I object to folks jumping to accusations of corruption, "sell out" and other attacks on integrity as an explnation of honest political differences. Sure, SEIU has some bureaucratic interest in maintaining control of their health funds, but they also have some quite principled ones in maintaining them as well.
For all the virtues of single payer, the bottom line is that it's politicians who control them, not the workers involved. And for folks who fought hard to get decent health care, turning the fate of their children's health over to politicians can look like a bad bet. Just look at the recent Medicare Prescription Drug plan; is it completely irrational for union folks to think that they rather keep fighting for benefits directly with employers than entrust their fate to Bill Frist and Dennis Hasert?
Nathan Newman