[lbo-talk] Fwd: Unions Endorsing HR 676, Single Payer Health Care

[Auguste Blanqui]

Yeah, one of the things that really bugs me is the imprecise slogan "health
care for all," or similarly, "Medicare for All."  It can mean a number of
things: single payer, fairly comprehensive but with co-pay, or something
like Romney.  I think Jacob Hacker is pushing the third, but I could be
wrong. (His book "The Divided Welfare State," which explains the
entrenchment of this system of private/employer provision, is well worth
reading, even if the obligatory "what is to be done?" section at the end is
rather weak.)
On 7/4/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2006, at 7:27 PM, Auguste Blanqui wrote:
>
> > The thinking of people like Stern is that such laws will make the
> > costs (rising as they always are) increasingly annoying for
> > employers like W-M, and that in what may be one of the strangest
> > cases of bedfellowism ever, they will lobby for national health
> > insurance out of economic self-interest.
>
> As the article says (and as Adolph Reed pointed out when I talked
> with him the other day), it's not likely to be a single-payer bill,
> but something like the Massachusetts plan, which is a fraud.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20060704/4f2b5034/attachment.htm>