the unions were the prime mover behind europe having nationalised health care, but it was seen as too commie over here, and that's the way it's still fought off by those that are getting rich off of the present broken system. hopefully we can really make some head way if something like this takes hold?
--###--

original

THE UNIONS, THEY ARE A-CHANGING

Robert Fitch's New York Times op-ed on the history of unions and nationalized health care would've been a better read a few years back. He's right, of course, that any list of the forces that have arrayed against national health care would have to include the union movement, which historically chose to champion the employer-based system over a government-run structure. But it's 2005 (and well within the margin of error for 2006), and invoking Samuel Gompers to characterize Labor while ignoring Andy Stern makes about as much sense as defining the Republican Party through the prism of Teddy Roosevelt.

The union movement is changing. And it's not just the new guard. The older unions, UAW included, are rapidly realizing that the corporate welfare state they so lovingly constructed is readying to collapse, with them beneath it. Today, the transit workers grudgingly accepted a deal that cuts into health benefits -- they had no other choice. Corporations have established similar beachheads in the benefit packages at Ford, GM, Delphi, and countless others. Where Old Labor used to focus on preserving what they'd already won, the swift disintegration of those gains is forcing them to search out more durable delivery mechanisms for health care, pensions, and the like. Their hostile posture from decades back isn't sustainable, but unions aren't stubbornly clinging to it, something Fitch fails to mention. No reason to let facts obstruct a perfectly good point, I guess.

Moreover, the new breed of unions -- SEIU, UFCW and the other service and low-wage unions Fitch never mentions -- have long been enthusiastic supporters of national health care. UFCW's homepage is anchored by a photo of a grocery cashier saying:

“Bottom line: contract negotiations are all about health care now. Unless something happens for health care nationally, I don’t see it getting any better.”
--Laurie Piazza, Local 4289
The way forward is for the unions to throw their considerable resources behind statewide efforts to universalize coverage, much as AFCSME is doing in California and SEIU is doing in Massachusetts. The older unions should spearhead similar efforts, particularly in Michigan, where benefit insecurity is most acute. Nationally, the union movement simply lacks the strength to overcome the conservative entrenchment, but more locally, unions could be the prime movers in creating statewide templates for a secure welfare state. And so they should.
~snip~
.
.
.
--###--

for complete article go here

--Ezra Klein
Posted at 11:02 AM

... the only way the US is going to get Nationalized Health Care is for the health care industry and it's arms (pharma, nursing homes, etc) to realize that folks are just so damn broke that nobody can pay for their services anymore and there's no more profit to be had.

When that happens, they'll go to the gubmint in search of some bigger sort of subsidy, and then maybe - just maybe - the floorgates will open. But any change will be for the benefit of the providers, not the users.

From a descendant of WOBBLYS I can tell you these unions need to stop playing golf with the corporate whores and start playing baseball with their members!

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

n/t