[jonknee]

But they don't want to replace it with anything other than everyone buys their insurance on the open market if they want coverage, which is why unions are against it. If they wanted to move to a full coverage system (single payer?), unions would be happy because everyone has healthcare.

[hugh4life]

No, they wouldn't be happy with that... they would get waivers from the single payer system... just like 650 of the 773 ObamaCare waivers currently go to unions.

[harold]

This list does indeed appear to be a veritable who's who of the president's campaign supporters. Seems hypocritical to me. If it's good enough for the rest of us, it should be good enough for them too.

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_f...

[sethg]

Were there opponents of the current administration who applied for waivers and were turned down, even though they had exactly the same circumstances as supporters who got their waiver applications approved?

[jaredmck]

I don't think unions would be necessarily happy with single payer- I wouldn't be surprised to see most (non-public sector, at least) unions cease to exist before long if single payer becomes a reality. Negotiation of benefits is one of the few valuable roles unions play these days, outside of political lobbying for the assumed goals of their constituents. Which is arguably part of the problem.

[anamax]

> If they wanted to move to a full coverage system (single payer?), unions would be happy because everyone has healthcare.

Citation needed.

Yes, the health care employers unions have expressed considerable interest in measures that would increase the demand for their members' services, but you're making a very different claim.

[jonknee]

> Citation needed.

Here's a good start:

http://unionsforsinglepayerhr676.org/union_endorsers