To which I'll respond by reposting part of one of my previous responses in this thread.
Abolish the state and let localities cobble together their own health plans. I'm sure the quality of care for localities like Newark's East Ward will be comparable to Newport's Fifth Ward. We don't need a bloated national bureaucracy when local autonomous regions can handle this themselves.
What is wrong with this picture? If the country was a relatively egalitarian place the local setup might be preferable but last time I checked the U.S. was anything but egalitarian. You have to get from where currently are to where you want to go and it isn't going to happen in one step. Universal National Health Care is a great positive first step and lamenting that it isn't radical enough is foolish. You acknowledge that health care would vary from community to community but apparently the unequal care and access that this would engender is a lower priority than remaining true to the ideal of favoring local collectives over state run plans. If it is grossly unfair and results in needless suffering who cares as long as we remain true to our opposition to the state. Ignore the fact that National Health Care could radicalize millions of people to demand more reforms of shitty market-based solutions because the suffering of individuals is insignificant when compared to remaining true to radical ideals.
I would have no problem with local collectively run hospitals instead of a National Plan IF the disparity between Newark and Newport was insignificant and access and car were equal from one locality to another. It isn't that I expect anarchists like Chuck to embrace National Health Care as Utopian given their opposition to the state but complaining about efforts to implement such as system as not being radical enough is self-indulgent and childish.
John Thornton