I read Paul Starr's book, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, a few years ago, and one thing has really stuck with me: Samuel Gompers' opposition to government-provided healthcare. Gompers is known as a relatively conservative guy, so when his opposition was first mentioned, I scoffed at it as totally predictable. But he wasn…
I read Paul Starr's book, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, a few years ago, and one thing has really stuck with me: Samuel Gompers' opposition to government-provided healthcare. Gompers is known as a relatively conservative guy, so when his opposition was first mentioned, I scoffed at it as totally predictable. But he wasn't just pro-health-insurance-industry, as most opponents of universal healthcare are today. Rather, Gompers knew that what the government could give, the government could take; only something *won* by union struggle could be *held onto* in the long term. Seems like a useful lesson.
I read Paul Starr's book, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, a few years ago, and one thing has really stuck with me: Samuel Gompers' opposition to government-provided healthcare. Gompers is known as a relatively conservative guy, so when his opposition was first mentioned, I scoffed at it as totally predictable. But he wasn't just pro-health-insurance-industry, as most opponents of universal healthcare are today. Rather, Gompers knew that what the government could give, the government could take; only something *won* by union struggle could be *held onto* in the long term. Seems like a useful lesson.