> Abstraction and formalistic, irrelevant position-taking rule the roost with
> you, while people who want to talk about, you know, facts, are just bumming
> your high. I don't intend to interfere with this hobby of yours anymore. You
> should start writing for Workers Vanguard. In the meantime, I am leaving
> this list.
>
> John Lacny
The facts tell us a piece-meal approach is going to be picked apart by the next administration or the one after that. There were advocates of National Health Insurance in the '50's and '60's and they were told Medicare and Medicade could be made part of a piece-meal approach to getting there. They were told the same thing in the '70's. The piece-meal approach was subject to blowing in the political wind however and benefits have increased and decreased as have enrollments. Meanwhile countries that passed a form of single payer haven't had to worry about the political ebb and flow nearly as much because the perception was that everyones fate was tied to the program instead of it benefiting "the others".
40 years of being told how much a piece-mean program is the only viable way have taken its toll. There is nothing wrong or unrealistic about saying single-payer or nothing. What is unrealistic is to look at the failures of a piece-meal approach and the successful implementation of single-payer type programs everywhere else in the world and still insist that piece-meal is the only way.
Social Security works because everyone benefits from it and picking it apart piece by piece is very difficult. In contrast Medicaid is perceived as benefiting "the other" and is picked apart by every administration inclined to do so. These are facts that apparently you and Nathan feel are bumming your high.
Single-payer or nothing for me. I'm not putting my time and energy pulling for a program that will be eliminated or severly curtailed two administrations down the road. History has shown repeatedly that this is far and away more likely than leading us to National Health Insurance.
John Thornton