Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Stern himself thinks
> you can get "universal" coverage by expanding on our present insane
> patchwork; that's economically and politically nonsensical. Could
> someone explain to me how what SEIU is doing on health care actually
> contributes to what really needs to be done?
I agree completely with this. Single-payer is clearly the _minimal_ program that will bring about measurable improvement in u.s. medical care. But here's what I don't understand: How could single-payer be won without a radical defeat of insurance interests? And are not "insurance interests" radically entangled with almost every other major element of u.s. capital? You write, "I gotta say this stance that people who support single-payer are some sort of hyperleftists or airheaded idealists, removed from the world of praxis, is annoying." I think perhaps those labels are applicable to _both sides_ of the argument. For only an airheaded idealist would think "expanding on our present insane patchwork" would be remotely practical. But, also, only an airheaded idealist would believe the insurance industry will allow a single-payer system.
I think the most probable oucome is that health care for a growing number of americans will become steadily worse and _nothing_ can be done about it. No reform through the legislature because of the strength of the insurance industry; no forcing of reform on the street because of the weakness of the left. There will only be the empty gestres of "Stern-like" or HRC-like 'reforms' while more and more go without any treatment.
This is not being pessimistic or saying that we should not struggle. It is merely trying to get a grip on those conditions within which we must work.
Carrol