> Mostly I'm on the "big step" side of the argument. But I also hate the
> idea of leaving people to suffer while waiting for that big step. And
> I have doubts about the effectiveness of telling people, "we won't
> even try to do anything for you while working on that big step". But
> again, fighting for those incremental steps consume vital resources
> that could help educate and organize for bigger steps - like single
> payer.
>
> So, anyone have a gripping hand here?
>
It might be interesting to presume that corporate interest will drive formation of a single payer universal coverage. And then argue, long and loud, about the 'fair share' that will be their (corporate) responsibility. (I'd argue that it shouldn't be anything less than their present obligation.)
Martin