> So Wal-Mart will be the piggy bank for universal
> coverage?
Obviously not, and that's not what I said. But going after Wal-Mart can be part of a generalized movement to expand health care coverage. There's nothing wrong with concrete victories in movement building. The current political reality is that almost all of our fights around health care are defensive. The Maryland victory against Wal-Mart was at least an offensive victory. These are tactical questions and not questions of principle.
Any victories on the route to single-payer (itself a half-measure compared to a comprehensive national health service, as I have said) would also be half-measures. Canada did it in Saskatchewan first. Here, I would not be surprised if a national-level bill (enacted after much popular ferment that is not on the visible horizon right now, and probably after the enactment of a lot of state-level proposals as well) did high-deductible "catastrophic" coverage for everyone, leaving a lot of basic health care uncovered. That would be far from ideal, but would we take it as one step along the way to comprehensive coverage? Sort of like a "first contract"? I think you could make a case for that. We need to lay the groundwork to create a new entitlement, which is what any decent solution to the health care question would be.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories