ORLANDO, Fla. -- The nation's union leaders said on Tuesday that they were "appalled" at remarks made by President Obama condoning the mass firing of teachers at a Rhode Island high school.

Barack Obama appealed to union members in Evansville, Ind., while campaigning in 2008.
Coming the day after union presidents sharply complained to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. over stubbornly high unemployment, stagnant wages and the administration's failure to do more to create jobs, the statement -- voicing a rare vehemence toward a Democratic president -- underlined the disillusionment of an important Democratic constituency.

Because unions have been so crucial to the Democrats election after election, political experts say labor's ambivalence, or worse, toward the Democrats could greatly deepen that party's woes this fall.

"Labor is very disappointed, whether it's about card check or the effort to tax Cadillac health plans," said Charles E. Cook Jr., publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, referring to a bill that would have made it easier to unionize and to tax high-cost health plans that many union members have. "They're really disillusioned. I think one by one unions will start getting engaged and helping out the Democrats, but it could be half-hearted."

Mr. Cook said that ever since the Republicans captured the House in 1994 (the Democrats regained it in 2006), labor has played an increasingly important political role every two years to lift the Democrats' fortunes. But he does not see that happening this fall.

Labor leaders are disappointed over how little Mr. Obama has delivered and are angry over his support of the firings of the entire faculty at Central Falls High School in Rhode Island because of its poor graduation rate. Nevertheless, leaders attending the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s winter meeting here in Orlando said they would mobilize labor's base for this fall's elections. They hope to minimize widely anticipated Republican gains. But that might not be easy.

"People aren't feeling so good about the president because the economy hasn't turned around," said Johnny Saunders, a steelworker in Martins Ferry, Ohio. "There are still massive layoffs, and people really believe that he bailed out Wall Street and forgot about Main Street. I think it's going to be a real challenge for organized labor to try to re-energize its base."

SNIP

Mr. Obama and the Democrats face problems among much of their base. Women's groups are angry that some Democrats are pushing new restrictions on abortion as part of the health care overhaul. Many Hispanic groups are upset that Mr. Obama has not pressed for immigration reform this year. And gay and lesbian groups are unhappy he has not ended "don't ask, don't tell" as a military policy.

In light of these problems, not having the 15-million-member union movement fully engaged and enthusiastic this November could be a major blow for the Democrats.

The "progressives" are a social class, not a political movement, and they are all about image.

"Look! Stupak was led by the Bishops!" ~ Ms. Magazine

"Look!  Stupak is in bed with the family!"  ~ Rachel Maddow

I KNOW it's bad policy!  I KNOW the f-heads on the right are all for it!  I can deduce for MYSELF that right-wing f-heads worked on it!

Oh goody... I can't wait...

Perhaps Republicans' ideological assumptions are just honestly mistaken? Or, more likely, there is no mistake at all; more profit for providers,  not more care at lower cost for patients, has always been and still is the goal.

There's a reason why wonky discussions of the issue always, mistakenly or dishonestly, insist the last major change to our health care system occurred in 1965, with Medicare, and completely ignore the dramatic changes made in 1973. The reason is this; our current state of affairs suggests the wonks were wrong about how discouraging use leads to cost containment then, and are most likely still wrong now.

By the way, the mainstream media has mostly ignored this story, but members of HSAs (Health Saving Accounts coupled with high deductible plans), that Republicans now claim will be the cost savings savior (by forcing consumers to make "better choices") that HMOs were once promised to be, have seen their premiums rise this year by as 79% or more. The reason for this is simple, to attact customers from traditional accounts these insurers promise and initially offered significantly lower premiums. Now, insurers claim that when they set these lower premiums they did not have enough data to determine the true cost of these plans. Costs, it turns out, have greatly exceeded expectations and now they must raise rates dramatically to make up for their losses.

Could it be that the high cost of health care has nothing to do with consumers "over-using" the system for "unneeded" primary care -- the kind of use HMAs are designed to discourage?