> I'd always thought that the obnoxious things about TNR's
> politics were right there on the page - their contempt for
> the left, their love of imperial power, their raving
> Zionism. Apparently that's not all - now you want us to
> believe that they're pushing for some version of national
> health insurance out of some convoluted scheme to protect
> Wal-Mart.
>
> And is Paul Krugman too part of this conspiracy so immense?
That's not what Nathan said; he said that you have to draw a distinction between Krugman and The New Republic. I'm inclined to think he's right; TNR's deliberate choice of the term "universal health insurance" as a way not to say the words "single-payor" strikes me as disingenuous.
I am for single-payor; indeed, as I've said, I'm for a full-scale National Health Service like they have in Britain, but with better funding. But what Paul Krugman is for matters -- he is a public intellectual and has influence, after all, so he should play that role -- while what I am for matters a lot less. In fact, it matters not at all unless I'm part of a strategy to actually get there. Simply saying you're for single-payor and "supporting candidates who support single-payor" will not do as a strategy. There aren't enough such candidates, and you need a supporting social movement infrastructure in relevant Congressional districts to make any candidacy real. A virtuous minority does not pass legislation.
In the meantime, the fair share bills are not "worthless." Anything that makes the capitalists pay is good. How often we forget that we are operating in the context of massive defeat. Any victory is a big victory. Coming back at the enemy with bold proposals is good, but those bold proposals mean nothing unless they are connected to a strategy to organize/mobilize people for real, and also to win concrete victories. Nathan's argument is that you will neutralize employer opposition to a more efficient single-payor or similar national health system by piling on so many mandates that it becomes economically rational for them to favor the better, more streamlined system. That seems reasonable to me, especially since employer opposition to single-payor is so monolithic now. Make no mistake, those CFOs who were polled may like the idea of the government taking care of their health care costs, but they're more interested in not having those costs at all, and in supporting health savings accounts and such. We cannot defeat this employer monolith until we can neutralize some of them.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories