Unions had their place... they're now quite defunct, and corrupt.

Any time somebody asks me about joining a union all I can imagine is people who are paid to ensure I devote money to them which may, or may not, result in better benefits for me... and in some cases the loss of my job.

If the Union Talks fail, and they go on strike... they replace you.  There are enough people looking for honest work to replace underlings now and days... underlings who were fired because of dishonest work.

Wow, I don't know how this can be a good article, since this is one piece of a big FUD writing.

So, all of these changes will be negative to Americans? If left-wing supermajority will be bad, then how about what did the six-year right-wing supermajority brought to Americans? You may argue that the article never said the changes will be 'bad', but we all can feel a strong negativety from the tones and word usage, like this "Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined." Wow, such a nice way to create fear.

I just don't see this article is 'good.'  By the way, even us poor Koreans have universal healthcare system. That's pretty much standard for all of well-developed countries except USA.

Only for the naive. There has not been a "right wing supermajority" in living memory.

On topic: No surprises there Brad.  Look at the Dept of Education?  Creeping incrementalism.  Once a program gets entrenched, there is no removing it.  And like the new deal of the 30s, this recession is going to be made worse.  But most people will not realize it as the willing propaganda arm of the liberals will make sure that the hype continues.

The difference between 2002-2006, and the next 4 years?  The next 4 years will have all 4 branches.  Not just 2 or 3.

You may get it, but there's a good chance you won't. To give you an example, in the UK we currently have the labour government in power. To appeal more to the electorate, they decided to rebrand themselves and no longer be the strong pro-Union party that they were historically. The result is that while unions have caused some problems over the years they've been in power, they haven't strengthened them specially, and have often been opposing them in some areas (since you're much more likely to have a striking union in a public sector of the economy than in a private sector).

Now the main point of this? Well this same party receives something like 90% of it's funding from the Unions (I can't be bothered to check the specific figure, but it's definitely around there). So, even though they were historically the party of the unions, and are funded almost entirely by the unions, they have still recognised that increasing the role of trade unions isn't actually a good thing. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if the same was the case with the Democrats even with a super majority, since hopefully they would recognise that such a move would damage their chances in future elections. People might support a union cause when they first hear of it (usually it's about striking over insufficient pay), but as soon as the strikes start affecting them personally, that support will vanish, and they will turn on those they hold responsible (which in this case would be the Democrats if they had strengthened the power of the unions dramatically)

It's a similiar deal in Australia, too. The current Labor government is made up of a significant proportion of former union hacks and receives a great deal of funding from the unions. But its relationship with the unions over the past year has been unfriendly at best, particularly with some of the largest and most radical unions.

The construction union, for example, has been the subject of an inquiry into corruption. The Electrical Workers Union has been denied so consistently there were serious rumbles at the beginning of the year to suggest they would become cease Labor membership altogether.

Unions only have the power of their membership; when hardly anyone is a member, even the political parties they support pay little attention.

Or you could go the way of two systems, where the public system offers better service but with waiting periods, while the private offers instant service but at a steep cost and potentially lower quality of care.(Anecdotal evidence from doctors and nurses I've spoken to in my city suggest the focus on care in public hospitals makes them the best choice for getting better services; private hospitals are too profit-driven to fund adequate nursing care. But, and it's a big but, if you need something done right away and it's not on the 'immediate action' list, private is the way to go).

Now there's a solution to outsourcing if I ever saw one... NOT.  Not to mention a lovely enhancement to our global competitiveness.  The equivalent of trying to shovel your way out of a hole.  If we're lucky, they'll suffer an acute attack of common sense before doing this (make that real lucky).

I know, it sounds counter-intuitive, hey. But the word on the ground seems to suggest that when a hospital is run for profit, corners are cut on standards. Not huge ones by any stretch of the imagination, but you get better nurses (higher pay and slightly fewer working hours) and the exact same doctors (the shortage of trained doctors is such that they tend to work everywhere they're needed) in most public hospitals in Australia. And considering how important good nursing care can be, that may well be a deciding factor in your choice of institution.

But it's a much smaller market, so it's entirely possible this divide is just a result of that rather than an innate advantage of public hospitals in a mixed system.

Perhaps. But what's the point? Obama's reform of healthcare is not about socialising the hospitals, it's about giving a federal healthcare plan to the people who cannot afford a private one.

You aren't changing the hospital's way of running things.

Single-payor means 'single-boss' - which means the needs and desires of the boss (the state) trump those of individuals.  Much of the time they are in sync, a large chunk of the time they are not.  You've already seen what can happen with attempts at social engineering courtesy of  Mr. Frank & Friends - do you really want that same crowd in charge of healthcare, all of healthcare?

Ok. Now, wait a minute.

There are two ways of socializing healthcare. First, trough the insurance. Second, trough the hospital.

Currently, in Quebec, our major costs are rising because of some of the mis-management of some hospitals. You can free one side while keeping the other,

What Obama wants is providing a federal healthcare coverage for those who cannot afford it. People with that coverage will still go to the hospital they want, and the hospital they want will bill them like they do any other customer.

And for those who dont want to pay for it.  Big difference.  And in the end, the only way to solve the inherant problem is to nationalize the whole program.  While some may argue that the abuse, inefficiency and cost over runs are not on the government side, one only has to look at any government program to find that those 3 sisters are the SOP of government run programs.

Which is still very good for somebody who just lost his job. Or got laid off, or just unlucky. Or has a pre-existing condition. How much stress are you going to take off of the shoulders of the workers in America with such a plan?

Sounds like a job for charity.  Let those who believe as you do pay for it. But it's pretty ridiculous for people to act like it's compassionate when it's all being paid for by a tiny % of the population.

Better re-read my comment.  Not cant pay for it - are unwilling to pay for it (which implies they can, but they know a steal when they see one).