>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?
>
Well, yes. But that entaglement is not a mutually supportive one.
Lots of companies are hurting because of health insurance costs and these costs will rise as the population ages and collectively pays the price for the "lifestyle" foisted on them.
You can have capitalism without privatizing health insurance.
The problem with privatization is that it pays off in the short term only. In the long term it is safer and more profitable to offload the loss of maintaining "human resources" on the public at large. Education, health care, etc. are better as public utilities. (The rich will always be able to afford private care of whatever kind they desire.)
That is the winning formula of capitalism: "Privatize gains; socialize losses." They got carried away with their own ideology and the sure bet of short term profits and forgot all about that.
Joanna