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... <div>On 2/7/07, Doug Henwood <<a href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com">dhenwood@panix.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Feb 7, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Auguste Blanqui wrote: > Can anyone explain what exactly Stern's position is? Here's what he said in the July 2006 op-ed in the WSJ <http:// <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2006/2006-July/013675.html"> mailman.lbo-talk.org/2006/2006-July/013675.html</a>>: > A new national policy framework is the easy part. There seems to be > broad consensus that we need a universal system that provides > affordable coverage, choice of doctors and insurance plans, core > benefits, and shared financing among employers, employees and > government. There are a couple of thousand position papers out there > to choose from. The problem isn't policy, it's leadership. And I > don't mean Washington, D.C. The political class in both parties is > full of words and bereft of action. They are not going to provide the > answers until they are forced to. That force must come from the > business community. Hey, there are lots of ideas out there - he doesn't want to embrace just one. The last sentence is so depressing. The leader of what's supposed to be the most dynamic union in the U.S. says it's all up to business. Doug ___________________________________ <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</a> </blockquote> </div>