<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> Auguste:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> 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. <o:p></o:p> [WS:] A more likely version of this scenario is simply businesses cutting health benefits without any lobbying, which will probably result in state subsidies of private insurers to shore up the system.  I am pretty certain that not only a “mass movement” you mention will not happen here, but the majority of voters will oppose a single payer system.  More likely scenarios are the revival of the old Clinton plan of public subsidies to private insurers and “faith-based” organizations stepping up to the plate and taking advantage of the widening gaps left by employers.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I agree with Doug that the single payer system is the best thing since toilet paper, but the chances of it happening here are quite remote, to say the least.  The very idea of government controlled single payer system has zero traction here, as aptly evident in Stern’s quote.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Wojtek<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>