I think you’re right: there will be a sense of latent unease with Obama’s proposed reforms, once they’re fully enacted – especially if people get left out (for the record: I am so not concerned about the Lucas Wyants of the world). But I haven’t heard a feasible strategy to get from where we are to single-payer in less than two moves. I think it might be the best of possible worlds to make sure Obama’s reforms are as comprehensive as possible, but to then use that success as momentum towards a truly national solution to health care reform. In the meantime, we can do a tremendous amount of good for people who need help urgently.

I wanted to chime in with a mea culpa. I think your response to my post has more to do with some bad writing on my part. In an attempt to simultaneously present the selling point for the public competitor and the single-payer movement objections to it, I may have implied something I certainly didn’t mean to. I was mainly focused on what happens when we have the Obama reform up and running and find that people are still being left out… does that imply we tinker when we get that close, or that we should be looking at a solution that covers everybody even if it takes longer? I didn’t mean to imply we should deliberately leave people without coverage to generate pressure. That would require a cruel ideological certainty about any of the reform schemes — one I don’t possess.

Anyway, I apologize for the confusion. Suffice to say, you’re one of my must-reads, so keep up the good work!