Nathan Newman wrote:
>I didn't say public health insurance is far left; in fact, I said it could
>end up being reactionary depending on how it's implemented.
-This is some of the weirdest stuff I've ever seen from you. Public -health insurance could be reactionary? Please.
So the 1994 California initiative that would have stripped immigrant workers covered by union health care of their benefits doesn't count in any way as reactionary? A bill that funded health care through a sales tax couldn't end up being more regressive than an employer-funded system?
-But your disparagement of the -only serious solution to the US health care crisis as "theoretical" -sounds like pure know-nothingism. There is a real movement for single -payer already, and it could bet a lot bigger and more serious if -organized labor would join it.
As I said, if a single payer campaign was serious in a state, I would (and probably will) be supporting it.
The header on this thread is about Yoshie bashing the "fair share" activists for mentioning that Wal-Mart has been dumping its health care costs on the public. My point was that worrying about the rhetorical effect of that fair share argument on the future fate of single payer is a pretty abstract worry.
Nathan Newman