> Employers will support single payer only when the employer mandates
> are so stringent that they lose the club against employees and the
> rationality and costs savings of single payer are more attractive
> than the wage-cutting discipline of the present system.
-The employer mandates in the current fair share legislations are -hardly stringent. As health care costs rise, the mandate to pay at -least 8 percent of payroll may eventually sound like a bargain.
The NYC and Suffolk County laws require $3 per hour of work worth of benefits, as does the statewide legislation being promoted by Working Families Party. So at least understand that groups are already to step two, expanding the benefit demand, in a number of campaigns.
No one on this list seems to want to really engage the "how do you get there" debate. The strategy for the fair share folks is clear-- use Wal-Mart as a wedge to establish laws with the principle of employer accountability, then start expanding coverage to more employers and push for tougher benefits standards. And if we push coverage to enough employers, some of them will then support more comprehensive solutions to get out from under those tough mandates.
How do the single payer folks on this list expect to win? That's what I'm not hearing. Zero strategy, zero power analysis.
Nathan Newman