Here's a question for YOU: What "problem" has ever been solved by reducing competition and creating a monopoly? What I foresee with any Western European-type, single payer system is...an amalgam of the old AT&T and a trip to the DVM. Competition ALWAYS results in higher quality and lower prices. Collusion (for example WEA Trust) ALWAYS results in higher prices.
By the way, it would be refreshing if JUST ONCE you used correct phrasing. The past several months has not been about "union haters". The past several months have been about "PUBLIC SECTOR union" ("haters", if you will). Private sector unions organize for a more equitable distribution of PROFITS. We can debate whether that is effective or efficient or equips us to compete on a global scale, but that is not the subject of your article.
"If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it is FREE"

It sounds like a win-win situation but it really isn't. It hasn't worked for the people in Canada who have this and it won't be a benefit to us either. I don't want anyone telling me what healthcare I have to have or what healthcare I can't have. It is affecting many already with things not being covered that were covered before this came along. This is ludicrous just to cover so many illegal aliens and others who are too lazy to do something positive and successful with their lives. Competition in the business world is a good thing and keeps many things in line where they could be out of control.

Heather Pelosi is at it again.

Your analogy fails on a number of counts but let's look at it the way it really has happened:

Society sees that their neighbor has a cow…which society paid for.

Society is in a financial crunch and cannot afford the cow and asks the neighbor to help pay for a portion of the cow and its related costs.

The neighbor lashes out in anger, protests, threatens all of society and claims that "this is what democracy looks like".

Society still cannot make the payments, so it cuts the funding for the cow and the neighbor is now responsible for the remainder of the costs.

Neighbor is angry and convinces people that society actually killed the cow!!
You are suggesting we move to a nation healthcare system because of a false impression that people are upset that the healthcare benefits of government workers are better than their own. The reason people were upset is that the cost of the benefits were being heaped on the taxpayers without a reasonable contribution by the employee.

To prove this point; the people at CNH and not crying foul because the benefits at Johnson Wax are better and the employees at Wheaton are not protesting outside of Aurora due to the difference in benefit packages.

We should not move to a DMV version of healthcare but a more transparent one.

Great comments from most everyone thus far. Steve is right in that you really must differentiate between PUBLIC and PRIVATE sector unions, due to the big ideological and philosophical differences between the two. And let's remember that in all fairness, even without their unions, teachers, firefighters, police officers - aka PUBLIC SERVANTS - are all still represented by the very same politicians that also represent the rest of the people as well, so their voices haven’t been deprived or taken away. They still get to vote, the same as the rest of us. The PEOPLE (taxpayers) have just reclaimed the power that is rightfully theirs to begin with. I thought that as a self-proclaimed liberal you'd like it when the PEOPLE are given more power, control, and choice.

Bill correctly shows the errors of the logic contained within your analogy in that you premise the entire analogy with incorrect/false assumptions and controls.

I am a moderate... this discussion will show it. First, when it comes to the unions, I do not see the cow analogy as even remotely correct. The union benefit contribution issue is really simple, especially from a public union viewpoint. ALL citizens are paying to cover the costs of these benefits via taxes... this same set of "ALL citizens" excluding those in the public unions saw their costs for healthcare go up in the prior two decades from virtually nothing to now being a significant chunk of income. SO... why is it fair that no only do those of us not in a union pay a huge chunk of our own insurance costs, but also have to foot the bill for the same chunk for others simply because they are in a union? That is fundamentally and obviously unfair.

Since I side with Walker on that issue I must be against public healthcare, right? Wrong. I think the free enterprise system is great overall, but absolutely has its flaws in some areas. Healthcare, to me, is one of those areas. I think it has become a problem due specifically to the cycle of greed in the private business world. To retain nice profits and lavish corporate salaries and headquarters there is a ping pong of insurance and medical cost increases that are feeding a vicious cycle. Only the gov can stop that. Gov may not have to run it all, but it should institute oversight, restrictions, caps, and whatever else will fix it. Health Care is a need and shouldnt be "for profit" nor answer to shareholders.

Society sees that their neighbor has a cow…which society paid for.

>>>>>>>These are people’s wages for a job they are preforming. Whether or not they came from taxes doesn’t make it less THEIRS, does it? Are they less entitled to collect what they earn because of the type of job they have?

Society is in a financial crunch and cannot afford the cow and asks the neighbor to help pay for a portion of the cow and its related costs.

>>>>>They were contributing and had already agreed to the hike prior to the bill. They pay taxes too by the way.

The neighbor lashes out in anger, protests, threatens all of society and claims that "this is what democracy looks like".

>>>>>Threatens? I don’t remember that. Lashes out? Angry? I am willing to bet you would be angry too if someone told you that you will start working even harder for much less. If people across the state were bashing you simply for choosing one of the most noble professions existing you would likely lash out too.

Society still cannot make the payments, so it cuts the funding for the cow and the neighbor is now responsible for the remainder of the costs.

>>>>>>If society is so broke – why all the help and tax cuts to corporations? Why are we paying full time salaries to legislators who work part time? Why take from those who have little and give to those who have most? Its hard for me to believe society is really as broke as they claim.

Neighbor is angry and convinces people that society actually killed the cow!!

>>>>>>Most people need no convincing. Everyone watched. They only problem is that half the audience cheered in a gladiator-like fashion – after all, it all about holding each other down, right? “Let him die!!”

You are suggesting we move to a nation healthcare system because of a false impression that people are upset that the healthcare benefits of government workers are better than their own. The reason people were upset is that the cost of the benefits were being heaped on the taxpayers without a reasonable contribution by the employee.

>>>>>Honestly, this is a mere drop in the bucket to why I think we need a national healthcare. It was one thought in an ocean factors. I just thought I’d mention it.

To prove this point; the people at CNH and not crying foul because the benefits at Johnson Wax are better and the employees at Wheaton are not protesting outside of Aurora due to the difference in benefit packages.

>>>>>While working in HR at one of these places I wrote out many severance packages to long time employees being replaced by expats and temps – I bet they would argue. Granted that is not the majority. The majority of people there are probably happy with their jobs/pay/benefits. But if unions in general hadn't set a standard for employers long ago – and keep doing so today – there likely wouldn’t be jobs like that. And unfortunately they are too few and far between.

Many of you have made thoughtful and understandable points. It is important to have the conversation and keep our minds open to something we may not have already thought about.

I had a wonderful Dr who has had to close his Racine practice. He insisted that if everyone had an insurance program similar to medicare, he would have been able to keep his doors open. They way insurance companies dictate how he practiced medicine was too much for him to take. He couldn’t spend necessary amounts of time with his patients. The bills were consistantly denied and took forever to be paid. He said medicare was the most efficient. Clearly it isn’t perfect and REGULATIONS would be needed to keep it in check. But I do feel something like that is doable and could be a huge benefit to our entire society.

@JW - I'm interested to know what you think of transparency in pricing? Example: price of an MRI at Aurora vs. Wheaton. That way, the consumer can decide the best facility (which assumes, of course, that both are in-network - another issue entirely).

Those who say the government can't run health care better than private industry and that the market will handle things... how do you explain away the fact that the costs have gone up so much in recent decades? The prices on many medications are crazy compared to what other countries pay... and, I think back to 20 years ago, if you needed an xray or scan of some sort, it happened and there was no o-o-p charge to the typical patient. The last time anyone in my family had something like that done (to scan sinus caveties) the procedure took less than 10 minutes (including all the prep time) and was partially covered by insurance but still left us with $1000 out-of-pocket. In the end the cost of surgery to potentially reduce the frequency of sinus infections was quoted at around $5000 out of pocket and the doctor stated there was no guarranty that the procedure (cutting away some bone to give better air access) would help nor that it wouldnt have to be redone every few years. So, we paid our $1,000 for the eval and had nothing done... it was like being robbed. The only thing I am assured to get from a Dr visit anymore is a nice sized bill. So I have come to pretty much avoid going to the doctor whenever possible. The whole thing is a mess, but I have not seen much to justify the costs beyond the insurance/liability issues. The government should put caps on all procedures, materials, and insurance premiums for drs and patients. All have to be addressed at the same time.

I cannot debate more today. Time for the weekend. Hope you all enjoy yours!!! Thanks for reading and commenting!! Open dialogue is a good thing!!

i am a public employee and now that i can only negotiate wage, they are hacking away at everything that we have bargained for ! if i even try to negotiate a raise, i will loose double that in benefits! and yes, they have also cut my hourly wage, took away double time for any work on sunday, they took away any scheduled overtime by reschedulng our work week or sending people home early if they had overtime earlier in the week. they are cutting any pay premiums for the more skilled certification licenes, after all is said and done, i lost about $4,000 a year.
so your analogy was correct! i had a cow! my neighbors shot my cow, and they were mostly my tea partying so called religeous neighbors!
let me remind those who shot my cow, that my public sector cow was setting the standard for how other cows should perform! but now, other cows will not put out as much milk because there is no longer any standard to go by!
the private sector will now see their wages and benefits start falling because they can no longer point to the standard that the public sector was getting!
so those who shot my cow will soon realize that they have shot theirselves in the foot!

Union hater? or Freedom lover? Public employee unions are a PART of the problem but not all of it. They are not negotiating against a CEO but rather all taxpayers. And, through union dues funneled toward dem canidates, they tend to control both sides of the bargaining table. Complete elimination is not needed but restrictions on what can be negotiated was long overdue. The changes in Hudson already saved our district over $1,100,000 annually once the union-owned insurance company was forced to face some competition. The only other problem is that the unions tend to protect bad employees. The focus in on tenure and not on success or capability of the teacher which is how they they should be rewarded. This would inspire our teachers even more to improve since it would lead to more money - the greatest motivator ever. Rather, they are left to wait for the next vote to increase their pay and they are forced to always be disgruntled with their pay - Generally speaking - and in my OPINION.