1. a strong enough social movement turns it into a wedge issue around election season so that politicians' stands on the issue make or break them. No such movement appears to have emerged, and the single-payer movement is instead dominated by a small group of lefty physicians (PNHP) who I think mainly preach to the converted.
2. the most likely, but still not likely, big business decides that it wants it and decides to lobby for shifting all medical costs to the state. I guess the Starbucks guy's complaints have been encouraging in this regard, but I'm not sure most employers (and unions) are ready to give up the leverage they have over workers because of this issue.
I'm not trying to be fatalist, but one of the frustrating things about PNHP and other single-payer organizations is that they seem to think moral and statistical suasion will eventually do the trick, and I don't see much strategic discussion among them about how to make one of the two points above actually happen.
On 2/7/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Auguste Blanqui wrote:
>
> > What do you think of Jacob Hacker's (and others') plan, which is to
> > gradually expand Medicare in increments to include successive
> > classes of people (starting, I guess, with children)? Given the
> > political landscape and entrenchment of the private benefits
> > system, I'm not sure how viable single-payer is, and this may be
> > the most realizable for now...
>
> That's pretty much the Conyers bill, no?
>
> We're never going to get anywhere if we say things like "I'm not sure
> how viable single-payer is." It's the greatest thing since sliced
> bread. It'll cure hemorrhoids and dandruff and get you a date on
> Saturday night. It's the only thing that'll get us out of this mess.
> Etc.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20070207/2304b683/attachment.htm>