> 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's one scenario, but another more likely scenario is that employers will structure employment and labor costs (e.g., hold down wages and other benefits to pay for increased health care costs) in such a way that the bills will take as little bite as possible, while fighting the mandates on the legal and political fronts.
And the NY and NJ bills are probably the most generous fair share legislations. Others <http://walmartwatch.com/fairshare/states/ others> are far more narrowly targeted, aiming for employers who have more than 10,000 employees.
Will unions ever decide that "now is the time to push for health care for all" . . . before unions themselves go out of business? It seems to me that it's a fight that you have to take up while you have still some money, power, and resources. The longer you wait, the less of them you'll have.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>