[lbo-talk] Re: WSJ editpage: "fair share" a flop

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Thu Jul 6 09:58:07 PDT 2006


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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list