Nathan Newman wrote:
>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.
Social Security is fine in place of nothing, atlhough it imposes a horribly regressive tax on workers (which becomes mildly progressive for those who live long enough to collect and of course excludes undocumented workers who have to pay the regressive tax anyways in most cases).
But telling unions to exchange their pension funds for only social security is hardly attractive. Which is what people seem to be advocating in the case of health care with the calls for eliminating employer-based health insurance.
-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.
Yes it does. And I'm all in favor. And it's not going to happen any time soon given the filibuster in the Senate.
So why bash SEIU and other unions for pursuing health care reforms that actually have some chance of improving peoples lives?
-- Nathan Newman