I guess it always needs some kind of concrete results for an interest group to lash back against. (Unfortunately)
There certainly is more genuine division about this bill than the hue and cry against it would have you believe. People need basic coverage; a lot of people (too many, in a country like this) don't have any, or not nearly enough. This activity seems to be coming from the kind of source one would expect -- organized labor, who are used to making their presence known as a collective. It's not as cut and dried as people who don't deal with unions believe, either -- you don't suddenly have benefits when you join a union and then you can sit back and rest assured of basic protection. It's a constant struggle to keep what you gain, through constant vigilence, and not to let the protection get stagnant and be outstripped by rising expenses.
|