> the abrogation of government enforcement of public safety
> standards in favor of individual claims, subject to whims
> of courts and juries;
I am sympathetic to this point of view in the abstract. But in the current political climate, "tort reform" is part of the Business Roundtable/Chamber of Commerce agenda. They are not in favor of stricter regulation. They are in favor of taking away the last recourse that people have against predatory capital. Maintaining the "right of private action" is especially necessary when regulatory enforcement is so lax; this is true for workplace health and safety violations, civil rights violations, toxic dumping, etc. -- not just lawsuits.
> Earlier on this list, Nathan voiced a support for the
> "Maryland approach" to health care by targeting individual
> and unpopular corporations, like Wal-Mart, and even
> preferred it to a single payer solutions, which he
> claimed is supported by the right. Others, including you,
> seemed to agree.
I don't think that's what Nathan said, and no, I would not agree with him if that is what he had said. I support efforts to make large employers shoulder more of the burden for health care costs because that is possible in the current climate and constitutes an offensive victory as opposed to a defensive one, at a time when our fights around health care -- like almost all of our fights -- are entirely defensive (e.g., stopping Medicare and Medicaid cuts). I understand that single-payor -- or preferably, even more thorough nationalization -- is a better POLICY PROPOSAL, but to insist on single-payor or nothing is to forestall those gains that we can actually win NOW.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories