> I'm not opposed to the Maryland bill, or similar efforts.
> Like I said, you could support that as part of a long-
> term fight for single-payer. 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 get
> a lot bigger and more serious if organized labor would join
> it.
This is where I'm skeptical. Where is this "real movement" of which you speak? In which states? Who leads it? It's certainly not happening on the national level. Conyers' bill is nice, but has no chance of passage in the short term -- or even the medium term, if the Republicans remain in control of Congress. If every union in the country endorsed it -- not only on paper, which is how most unions do things, but by mobilizing members -- it would still go nowhere, because unions are weak, particularly in politically strategic Sunbelt states that are growing in population.
I would definitely join a movement that is serious, and I would advocate that the labor movement -- or whoever has influence -- should push harder for better improvements hopefully leading to single-payor where that is possible. But where is that possible? These are still questions of strategy and not of principle.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories