> But going after Wal-Mart can be part of a generalized movement to
> expand health care coverage.
Going after Wal-Mart can be part of a generalized movement to expand health care coverage, if proponents of Wal-Mart fair-share-for-health- care bills and the like didn't disparage socialization of health care through the government, but unfortunately they do -- vigorously: one of the WakeUpWalMart demands is this -- "Affordable Health Care. Provide all workers comprehensive, affordable health insurance coverage so they can care for their families and no longer be forced to rely on taxpayer-funded public health care" (at <http:// www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/benton/>). But we are for families relying on taxpayer-funded public health care rather than employer- sponsored insurance plans, because that's good both workers first of all (and it can be argued to be good for some businesses, too, as it helps increase "labor flexibility" without social conflicts). It's not a good idea to employ short-term tactics that are at odds with medium-term needs.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>