Re: Re: WSJ editpage: “fair share” a flop
On Jul 6, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
I think the WSJ overstates its case a little. Shocking, I know. It’s not surprising that other states, which might be perfectly delighted to have such a law, would figure that they might as well hang back a bit and see what happens with the legal wrangle over the Maryland law. It’s quite possible that Wal-mart will win in court with the legal argument that this is pre-empted by federal law. Sweeney could be faulted for excessive rhetorical flourish, I suppose. The political argument that this is not the health reform we need is another matter (I agree.) But my sense is that as a pressure tactic it may have had some good effect — it helped put the issue of Wal-mart’s crappy benefits in the media and keep it there for a while.
But what do you make of the argument that Stern is angling not for
national health insurance, but some national version of the dreadful
Massachusetts plan?
Doug