Sorry, I probably wasn't very clear. I agree that mandatory health insurance a la Clinton is a bad thing; but arguing against it _because it is coercive_ (as Obama does and Shane seemed to be doing) is probably even worse. It seems to me one of the significant difficulties with building a campaign for single-payer is the prevalence of a political language in which "choice" is always considered a good thing (certainly, this is the language that is always used to justify the creeping dismantling of the NHS in Britain). I think we should oppose anything that furthers the idea that things would be better if we had more choice. That includes Obama's opposition to mandates, as well as Clinton's own proposal which, despite the coercion, is called the "American's Health Choices Plan."
(It occurs to me that opposition to the ideology of choice is also a good reason to be opposed to third party political campaigns).
> And: sure you could always pay twice for insurance, once through taxes and
> again for a separate private plan. This is not likely to be more
> appealing than
> being obliged to enroll in the Gov plan, unless you've got lots of dough.
Maybe this is just a matter of phrasing, and it might not matter much, but I would be more prepared to agree with "single-payer is unlikely to be successful because people don't want to have to pay again for health-insurance that they get already," rather than "single-payer is unlikely to be successful because people don't want to give up their current health insurance." I would guess that any single-payer system wouldn't cover everything when it was introduced, so those with private insurance would still get some benefit from it; hopefully, the government scheme would slowly expand, and people would be slowly weaned off their private insurance.
--
"Why must man's vocation always be to distinguish
himself from animals?" http://blog.voyou.org/ -- Baudrillard