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