> I more or less agree with you on the analysis of the rhetorical
> differences between the plans, but I come to the opposite conclusion.
> Coercion is good! The one good thing about mandatory insurance is that
> it at least raises the vague possibility of the government actually
> intervening coercively to ensure health care for all. Single-payer,
> after all, basically means coercing everyone to buy the government's
> health insurance. Obama's opposition to mandates (because he's all about
> choice, not coercion), is an example of how he is positioning himself to
> Hillary Clinton's right.
You see some continuity between the real state coercion of labor and a hypothetical state coercion of capital?
If your "left" favors the state soaking workers on the theory that it might someday use similar logic to justify soaking the capitalists, sign me up for the right.