Unions can be the solution to the health care crisis.

I recently read my wife's benefits folio, (she works for a large employer - maybe 10,000 people worldwide), and found that the company paid 2x what my wife paid in, which amounted to 20,000 a year.  My wife's health care contributions, however, were roughly $250 a month, so collectively she and her company paid $750 a month for her health insurance, which is very good - not top shelf, but very good.

When she was unemployed, I was shopping around for health care, and a similar policy would have cost us $1200 or more, as far as I can tell.  I attribute the difference to the power of her employer to get a discounted rate, in exchange for delivering the health care provider their 10,000 employees business (which is paid for by the company, so it's a huge assurance of income, as compared to the individual employment situations of a similar number of individual policy holders).

I suggest unions use the same bargaining power they use for their members for the greater public, which will in turn give them even more bargaining power, which could (should) result in lower costs for their members and the general public as well.  The unions would make their current plans available to the general public, plus the cost of added administrative costs for coordinators, claims submissions, etc..  By adding members, of course, the unions could get better rates, which they could pass on to their members, lowering the cost of health care for union members. 

If unions did this across the country, they could add members nationwide, becoming the default middleman between the public and the insurance companies, which would even out the rates everyone pays - corporate, individual, unions, etc would all, eventually, end up paying the lowest cost possible for the care they are receiving.

I believe once it all settled out, health care could still be run and managed by private companies, but be delivered at a much lower cost.

He must be confusing "fundamentals" with "fundamentalist" because he seems to define it as a measure of the character of the American worker.  If the fundamentals of the economy meant that, however, there would only be 2 explanations for the current state of affairs: a: the american worker has always been a person of character, so the fundamentals are therefor ALWAYS strong, or b: the american worker recently went really bad - started rotting from the core.

Now I don't think that either of those scenarios define the problems with the economy these days, so I will argue that when people say the phrase :the fundamentals of the economy are strong", they are using the word "fundamentals" to mean something more along the lines of transparent, solvent, and trustworthy.  I personally feel it is dangerous for a president of the united states to believe otherwise.

i don't think this is relevant

hard to knock to the mainstream media for ignoring the important issues while TPM posts stories about Palin having a tanning bed.  After all, there is a reason white people are white, and a lot of it has to do with living in places like alaska....