I'm surprised that the left isn't more ambivalent towards this sort of proposal. While it will provide more workers with insurance, it will also remove the burden of paying for insurance from big businesses and place it more exclusively on tax payers.

Now, you could assume that the taxes for this sort of proposal will be paid for by the big businesses (especially considering your assumptions/hopes about a Democratic president) but then you have to ask yourself, if the big businesses will be paying, through taxes, for a higher (or even equal) percentage of the health care costs in the future, why would they ever push for such a plan?

Remember, these companies are ONLY trying to save money. If they're not going to be paying for it, and it's certainly not going to get any cheaper (assuming universal coverage), then the people you're trying to help are going to be the one's paying for it.

I haven't actually looked at the proposal, so feel free to ignore this whole point. I just assume that if it's good for Walmart and requires government intervention, it's not likely that it's going to be good for the rest of us.

When you say "the rest of us," are you speaking for the 40% of Americans who are uninsured? In any case, I see your point and I see this is a compromise, a place where big business and the left can come together. Of course, then there'll also be the usual battles as to how to fund such things, how to levy taxes, etc. But at least at that point we'll have universal health care.

5-10 years? Not if Mary Cheney has anything to say about it!