Philip Howard may be the most insightful and balanced social analyst in the country. But perhaps because he's so smart he apparently is not inclined to cooperate or encourage networking. That's a no-win prospect because it limits the influence of his ideas.
True, Wat! But we just can't call it that! After all. we have socialized (public) education, socialized (public) police, socialized (public) firefighters, socialized (public) military ( in Ancient Greece, you had to buy your own armor, etc.), but we just don't call them that, we leave off the "s" word (for savings?).
Maybe "Public Medicine" would fly. Someone call Bernie. RB75
The genius and the success of the U.S. Constitution is that it is concise and does not micromanage. Perhaps the folly and futility of public-sector CBAs is that they are overly broad and obsessive.
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!
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.
I am in favor of visionary and idealist ideas - but only if their proponents present practical pathways to put them into practice. If they don't do this they simply add to the vast noise of the system.
I always thought that the entitlement of govt. workers to "due process" was a fair trade for NOT being allowed to strike. I never thought about whether or not govt. officials could bind "the People" with collective bargaining agreements. Very interesting.
Philip Howard may be the most insightful and balanced social analyst in the country. But perhaps because he's so smart he apparently is not inclined to cooperate or encourage networking. That's a no-win prospect because it limits the influence of his ideas.
True, Wat! But we just can't call it that! After all. we have socialized (public) education, socialized (public) police, socialized (public) firefighters, socialized (public) military ( in Ancient Greece, you had to buy your own armor, etc.), but we just don't call them that, we leave off the "s" word (for savings?).
Maybe "Public Medicine" would fly. Someone call Bernie. RB75
The genius and the success of the U.S. Constitution is that it is concise and does not micromanage. Perhaps the folly and futility of public-sector CBAs is that they are overly broad and obsessive.
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!
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.
Insurance-centric Medicare is crap, and "Medicare for All" is utter nonsense.
We NEED SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! That is what the US Public Health Service is CAPABLE of providing. EVERYWHERE.
HWE
(Age 76)
I am in favor of visionary and idealist ideas - but only if their proponents present practical pathways to put them into practice. If they don't do this they simply add to the vast noise of the system.
I always thought that the entitlement of govt. workers to "due process" was a fair trade for NOT being allowed to strike. I never thought about whether or not govt. officials could bind "the People" with collective bargaining agreements. Very interesting.
H. Watkins Ellerson