On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Joseph Catron wrote:
> One point of contention: If we suppose ourselves to be engaged in a
> long-term struggle we're not going to win any time soon, why should
> it be
> for single-payer rather than a national health service? Presumably
> most of
> us actually want the latter and would consider it far preferable to
> the
> former, no?
Yeah, but single payer could actually happen. It's much less disruptive than a total overhaul - you could get docs & hospitals on board. And everyone hates insurance companies, so by the old rule that you always need an enemy in politics, there's a perfect one right there.
Doug