Jenny Brown writes:
> Well, that's not true. There's a huge private insurance industry that stands
> to lose a great deal.
Well, notice I said "could" above. I was just using the economists' definition of efficiency. As part of what I said before, the increases in efficiency _could_ be used to compensate the insurance companies. Now, I don't think that's a good idea, but it's a possibility.
These days, it's losses by workers resulting from increases in efficiency that are defended by the fact that _in theory_, the workers could be compensated. Of course, they aren't compensated.
I think we should turn the tables, if possible.
> Also, Walmart and any other employer that offers even shitty, expensive
> health coverage loses the ability to use health care as a club to keep their
> employees in line and in fear of losing their job. I think this would benefit from
> more 'class against class' analysis, not less.
With single-payer, Wal-Mart wouldn't be able to use that club.
Yes, I'm all in favor of class vs. class analysis, as long as we don't think it's the _whole_ story.
I think that capitalism does not promote efficiency unless workers (and some other forces) push it -- via class struggle -- to be efficient. The social-democratic period in W. Europe (a result of a long process of workers' struggle against management) was one of the most efficient periods in capitalist history. -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles