The article ends with the statement that "Sometimes you just need to draw a line in the sand and say “enough is enough”." That's all well and good, but who can do that without the law on their side? Not many people can afford to be fired.
Or the average person is easily brainwashed by propaganda and can be easily manipulated to vote against their own interests.
I like how "death panels" became a favorite PR slogan during the healthcare debate, while the same people don't realize their employers and the insurance companies are already functioning as the effectively the same "death panels".
There is also another element to it: everyone seems to be wondering how come we are "coming out of the recession", profits are up, and yet the unemployment is so high !? The economists are just baffled and writing long essays discussing this phenomenon. To me it seems that Americans are seeing their co-workers laid off, they have their health insurance tied with their employment, they have large mortgages that they cannot afford (yes, it is their fault for taking on those depts), large credit card bills, no savings -- these are not people who will protest and demand more vacation time and higher pay. They will be working 60 hour weeks doing the work of their laid off co-workers, trying not to be next. If they lose their job, most will end up losing their home and health insurance for their children.
I understand this probably doesn't affect the average HN-ers, who are running successful startups, or would have 2 job offers the minute they walk out of their work place. But unfortunately that is not true for most Americans.
You seem for government regulation yet mention high unemployment, health insurance tied to employment, large mortgage debt, large credit card debt, and no savings. All of these problems are caused or worsened by government.
Government tax rules make it more expensive and complex to hire. Government minimum wage requirements make it outright illegal to profitably hire the lowest-skilled workers. Government unemployment benefits provide workers with incentives not to find a job.
Employers did not normally offer health insurance until government tax rules encouraged them to do so by not subjecting health insurance benefits to the normal income tax. Government is responsible for making it more expensive for a worker to purchase insurance himself rather than through his employer.
Large mortgages are encouraged by special tax treatment for mortgage interest and by tax breaks associated with home ownership.
Government's inflationary monetary policy and its prohibition/discouragement on citizen's use of other money encourage people into debt and discourage saving. In an era when everyone seems to be in debt, interest rates should be very high, encouraging savers. Yet interest rates are at or near all time lows.
Would that more people would vote against government regulation. Unfortunately, most seem to have been brainwashed by government propaganda.
This is never likely to be the case. In the UK, the state provides a high standard of free universal healthcare in the form of the NHS. There is also a huge network of private hospitals and clinics that you can pay for in cash or using insurance. Many employers offer private health insurance as a benefit.
"In any case, after making this broad promise in favor of individual liberty, Hillarycare went on to limit individual liberties. It attempted to do this in the Fraud and Abuse section of the proposed law, which sought to dry up most of private medical practice, and criminalize the rest. It provided for strict governmental controls over the fees that could be charged by fee-for-service doctors or private practitioners. And if the feds decided that a private doctor’s fees were too high, they could charge him/her with bribe-taking, a serious federal crime under the new law. Indeed, Hillarycare attempted to make illegal most of the ways patients could go outside the approved system to get “extra” healthcare. Criminal penalties could accrue to both the doctor and patient. According to Paul Craig Roberts, writing in the Washington Times in December, 1993, “Mr. Clinton’s plan turns normal patient advocacy into a federal criminal offense. For example, a doctor who wants an earlier date for surgery for a needful patient can be accused of using wrongful influence and accepting a bribe and sentenced, along with the patient, to 15 years in prison.”
According to the source above, Obamacare is modeled on Hillarycare, except that it's less organized and twice as long (2700 pages vs 1368 pages.)
The reason why people object to government interference in the marketplace is because government involvement necessarily implies coercion, otherwise whatever government is doing could be done privately. If you have a scheme to provide affordable healthcare that is a "win" to all parties involved, you're welcome to do it privately, without relying on coercion.
Of course there are disadvantages to unions, as there are to all large organizations. They tend to take on a life of their own, with its own agenda which may not represent the will of its members.