On Jan 21, 2010, at 1:34 PM, Joseph Catron wrote:
> I don't think progressive features like an employer mandate, price
> controls,
> and the public option are exactly marginal among either Democratic
> voters or
> politicians.
Voters, of course not. Many Dem voters have a pretty good outlook on life. But the further you go up the party hierarchy, the worse things get.
>> Auto and other old-line manufacturing businesses might be helped by
>> single-payer, but do you see them agitating for it?
>
>
> No, but if we're going to discuss that, we might as well tackle the
> reasons
> labor isn't either.
Totally different, I'm guessing. Someone who knows auto well told me that while many GM execs might favor single-payer in private, they don't want to be seen as advocating the expropriation of a branch of capital, so they keep their mouth shut. If it could happen to the inscos, it could happen to them too.
In the case of the unions, someone who knows the internal politics well told me that the unions took dictation from their people in DC, who told them what was "possible" or "realistic." They started from that position, rather than viewing it as a final constraint. So they never really fought even for something as compromised as the public option.
> But at any rate, you don't seem to be exactly disagreeing with me
> here. In
> fact, you haven't really stated your position on my question at all.
> Do you
> think that the Republican health care agenda is more aligned with
> broad
> corporate interests (not just the insurance industry) than the
> Democratic
> one?
There are different sets of corporate interests. And the petite bourgeoisie is an important popular base for the Reps, and the p.b. tends to be far more anti-state than the big boys. The big boys are more favorable to state action, as long as it doesn't lead to expropriation.
Doug