Jenny Brown wrote: >>Well, that's not true. There's a huge private insurance industry that stands to lose a great deal. 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. <<
ignoring (or ignorant of) my reply to Jenny, Nathan Newman writes:
>Yeah-- the whole technocratic idea that there is some kind of
"everyone wins" from single payer rhetoric is abstracting health care
policy from the broader assault on workers rights that health care is
only a component. <
I am not now and have never been a technocrat. However, I find that it's useful to know what the technocrats know. (Ignorance is _never_ bliss.) Among other things, it often happens that technical solutions -- such as single-payer health care plans -- are superior economically (i.e., more efficient) but then are rejected politically (including by Nathan Newman). Understanding this conflict helps one understand political economy (though it's obviously not the whole picture).
You should notice that I didn't say "everyone wins" but instead (in effect) "everyone _could_ win." Just because there are programs that _could_ benefit the world as a whole (e.g., ending global warming) doesn't mean that everyone _will_ gain. I talked about this is the part of my missive that Jenny replied to and in part of my reply to Jenny. Nathan edited out (or missed) these parts.
It's ridiculous to say that >single payer rhetoric is abstracting health care policy from the broader assault on workers rights that health care is only a component. <
You simply _assume_ that because people are talking about one issue (health care), they ignore other assaults on workers' rights. I don't see Nathan Newman talking about global warming. It would be inaccurate to assume that he doesn't see it as real.
>Employers don't want a uniform health care system; <
right. A uniform health care system is rational only for the U.S. capitalist class as a whole. It doesn't make sense to them as individuals.[*] No-one said that single-payer would be easy. But it would allow an increase in efficiency, which makes the reform more likely to last over time.
[*] It's like the cattle-raiser on U.S. National Public Radio last night; he was against centralized tracking of cattle as a way to deal with "mad cow" disease. His focus was totally on the costs to _him_, not on the fact that he would be wiped out if/when the mad cow epidemic comes.
>they like a system where some workers have no health care, since
that's the "club" as Jenny notes that is used to cut wages and other
benefits for workers with a union contract. One reason unions are
supporting fair share legislation like the New York and Massachusetts
bills is to remove that club. And the reason most "good" employers
don't rush to sign up, even though they would theoretically benefit
from imposing similar costs on their competitors, is that they know
they would lose that pressure on employees. <
so the "fair share" plan faces exactly the same resistance as single-payer.
>Those promoting "fair share" legislation use cross-class rhetoric
around benefitting high-road employers, but unlike, apparently, the
single payer folks, we aren't fooling ourselves that most businesses
are really looking for such win-win results.<
I don't know who you're talking about. Not me. Please be specific about who you're criticizing (and be more careful when you read).
> 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. <
but pushing for employer mandates totally _misses_ the problem of the unemployed. As long as the unemployed exist, i.e., under liberal capitalism, the club will be there. If you're not good, we'll fire you and you'll be unemployed without health insurance.
and of course, Medicaid is being cut back... -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles