>But don't you have to assume that the union policymakers decided on the
>strategy because they think forcing some state legislatures to implement
>mandatory employer coverage is more politically "realizable" at this time
>than getting legislation for universal medicare at the state or federal
>level?
Maybe. But maybe they - specifically SEIU - also thought that this approach wouldn't alienate their employers in the health care industry. (This is Fitch's explanation for SEIU's position, which I'm sure will bring out the artillery.) In fact, medical providers might like the scheme, since it would mean more payments for them, fewer charity cases, and no threat of the global budgeting that would come with single-payer.
Again, though, the unions are an important part of what makes something politically feasible or not. If they signed onto single payer en masse, it would completely change the balance of forces.
Doug