Here we go:
Unions want Reid to include a government-run insurance program in the merged bill and remove a tax on high-priced insurance policies. Gerald McEntee, head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), estimates half of its 1.6 million members would be affected by the tax.
McEntee said union workers have often chosen to accept lower wages in exchange for better and more costly health insurance. He said union members, who frequently organize get-out-the-vote efforts for Democrats, won't be afraid to remind politicians of that in next year's election.
"We worked for all these people. We worked for Obama," he said. "What do we get for it? We not only don't get anything for it, we get a slap in the face."
McEntee favors the House health care bill, which includes an income tax surcharge on high-income workers and a government insurance plan.
Many of the ideas favored by unions are opposed by moderate Democrats as well as Republicans and would make it difficult to attract the 60 votes needed in the Senate to end filibusters. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., for instance, has said he will not support government-run insurance called for in other versions of the bill.
Whole article here. And so easy equations between labor and management, Dems and Reps, rich and poor, right and left, you name it, continue to break down in the reality of, well, reality.
To the extent that this sort of friction begins a conversation that might actually end is something like actual health care reform (by which I mean a more market-driven, individual-centered outcome), it's all to the good. To the extent that it simply leads to an absolute capitulation to all demands by all parties and bigger and bigger government involvement and spending, well, it's not so good.