Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tom Minet's avatar

Well, given your introduction, Jonathan, I kept waiting for the inevitable points over which I'd disagree with Mr. Howard. Granted, I read this piece late at night, but I found myself agreeing over and over again! I'm not sure, however, how the fundamental issues can be changed (the Supreme Court notwithstanding). Looks like I'll have to read Mr. Howard's book! By the way, I don't know how I lived in Montclair for 20 years and failed to run into you! For the last two years, I've been in Northfield, Minnesota (a few blocks from Carleton, oddly enough), but I'll be moving back to Montclair in June. Perhaps I'll see you then!

Expand full comment
Robin Batteau's avatar

Ironically, from the '60's on, Medicare for All efforts fell to critical opposition from union heads who felt it would weaken their importance to their members, so it couldn't get through even a wildly Democratic Congress, unless a post-Nixon Republican president was sure to veto it. Nixon was for it. Unions have mostly come around now. My own (non-public) three unions have evolved in many ways, public unions might have, too. By the way, lowering the age for Medicare would actually save the government money, since treating heart disease in your '50's would prevent surgery in your '60's. Plus, feeling protected, lots of weary workers would retire, opening opportunities with raises for Millennials, and lowering costs for employers. Old Goats like new pastures. Baa. Ruminating.

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts