JB:
Really? Does he say that? Polls say exactly the opposite, that the public is for it.
*******************************
Krugman wrote:
I believe that universal health care has to be THE central item in a
progressive agenda -- not just because it's the right thing to do, but
because of its political economy implications. As I explain in
Conscience of a Liberal, Republicans went all-out in 1993 to block
health reform because they feared that success would reinvigorate the
progressive agenda. And they were right.
Now, if I had my way I'd just go to single-payer, Medicare for All. But
that's politically impossible, at least for now. What had me hopeful
was that the Democratic candidates seemed to be offering a more
feasible path that could work politically: regulation, subsidies,
mandates, plus public-private competition that could eventually lead to
single-payer.
Obama's plan fell short -- but I was initially willing to cut him
slack, figuring that it could be improved. But then he began making the
weakness of his plan a selling point, and attacking his rivals for
getting it right. And in the process he has systematically trashed the
prospects for actually achieving universal coverage.
The Obama plan is still vastly preferable to plans that rely on tax
credits and the magic of the marketplace. But from where I sit, a dream
is dying -- and progressive Obama supporters, caught up in the romance
of his candidacy, don't understand that he's actually undermining their
cause.
full: http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20080204/002257.html
**********
MB:
>And Shane, the logic of making it a public responsibility to pay for education
is the same the logic as making it a public responsibility to pay for health,
right? Of course, even if the people without kids or people who choose to opt
out of the public school system and pay private schools for the service. Same
goes for the Christian Scientists and their refusal of medical help.
******************** JB: Except that this isn't in the form of a tax, it's in the form of requiring those individuals without insurance to pay a private company to provide it. So the equivalent would be requiring someone who can't afford, or doesn't want, to send their kids to private school to pay the private school tuition anyway. But then don't require that the school actually provide an education. ***********
My understanding is that Kucinich was advocating a similar line; but he didn't get the backing of of U.S. based selectors and so his position (although it may have coincided more with public opinion on the issue of 'single payer') did not win out in the capitalist democratic horse race. So, now you've got two people in your bourgeois democratic setup who are offering their versions of what MIGHT or might not be the resulting Congressional legislation AFTER one of them takes the helm of the executive committee of the ruling class. I think Krugman probably has a good grasp of which one of those candidates' proposed programs for health care reform will have the greatest chance of sliding toward 'single payer'.
BTW, if I had my way, health care would not be a commodity and democratic governance would be controlled from the grassroots. But of course in a bourgeois democracy, power lies with those who appropriate the wealth created by the working class, thus the dilemma of chosing which capitalist polytrickster to vote for.
Mike B)
http://www.iww.org.au/node/10 "Would you have freedom from wage-slavery.." Joe Hill http://www.iww.org/en/join
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail