Nathan Newman wrote:
>A failure to equate enthusiasm for "government-run" with social democratic
>aspirations makes little sense.
-Well who else is going to do it? The Ford Foundation?
Worker-controlled benefit funds is one approach. While full coverage through such funds got stalled in the US because of the stall in union expansion post-Taft-Hartley, a worker-controlled social insurance approach always had appeal to a lot of folks. There was always an anti-government, quasi-syndicalist strain in the labor left in the United States, largely because the government was so often the enemy in labor fights.
One reason I am an enthusiast for the "fair share" health bills kicking around requiring employer provision of health care is that it taps into a populist demand for provision of health care without having to overcome the anti-government strain of skepticism in politics. My attitude is that pushing directly for single payer is a loser, but if employer mandates are passed covering enough of industry, that is the only point where business will drop its resistance to a government-run health care system.
Nathan Newman