Toward the end of the article, this paragraph, followed by quote from SEIU's Stern saying he will want to see whole package before going against taxing health insurance benefits:

Organized labor, a pillar of the Democratic Party base, considers the benefits among the union movement’s historic achievements for the middle class. But a split could be developing between the manufacturing unions, which have negotiated rich benefit packages, and the growing service employees unions, which include many low-wage workers without generous benefits. (My emphasis)

this isn't even 2% less evil, this is the McCain plan, which just went down in electoral flames, why does it even get the time of day? Why isn't it taken off the table as not politically practical?

Truly our misledership holds us in contempt.

Baucus. This may be why he's tossing the actual legislation and language to Congress. The Blue Dogs and fiscal conservatives will come up with this kind of crap and The One can wash his hands of the bad shit, saying that he signs more in sadness than in joy, but that healt insurance must be reformed.

And it will be a bill for the insurers, not the people -- with just enough cover to say it benefits some of those uninsured. Lots of people will be forced to buy insurance which won't help them. But after the "reform" it will all be their fault.

The MCM* and even Dems would not have allowed Hillary Clinton to go back on her promises the way Obama is being given a pass.

*MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media

They have many of us us broke and jobless, and all of us reeling and disoriented by the ascension of a fake Democrat to the presidency. Now is the time to follow up the bankers' seizure of most of our money with an insurers' seizure of the rest.

I can imagine a host of reasons for putting this on the table. All suggest that Obama thinks he is starting the health care reform process from a position of weakness. The optimistic take is that it's possible the concept is offered to see that it is dispatched early. There is value in undercutting one's opponent's plan early, leaving them little cover for opposition. Obama could also be conducting the political equivalent of a brush back pitch. He could be reminding the Villagers that the Republican alternative lost at the ballot box. The Washington Post this morning gave us the official Village take on the nation's governance: Brooks and Ignatius are now thoughtful centerists, and Obama is a radical. Making the right wing defend the indefensible for a while should make any actual change easier. Which brings my consideration of the alternative explanations to the pessimistic view. It's also possible this is to be the basis for legislation, and the Democrats in Congress are expected to work with basically a Republican bill to make it "bipartisan." After all, Obama is the guy who wants to prove his "responsibility" by reforming Social Security. The evidence showing which of these possible explanations is the plan will be found in the strength of White House and Congressional Democratic support.

My question is: if this is the same as McCain's plan, does that mean Obama is 3-8% less evil than 5-10%? Too bad we can't use Bill Clinton's acknowledgment that single payer is a good idea instead of the crap Obama and the Dems are throwing out there.