The spectacle of tout France on strike because the government is asking its citizens to work until age 62 before receiving any pension benefits (currently the age is 60) made me think of our own recent mass protests. When health care reform was on the docket in Congress huge public rallies – the birth of the Tea Party movement – were organized across America to send a message to Washington: No thanks, we don’t want guaranteed health coverage; we prefer the freedom to go without!

The French believe it is their right to be taken care of by their government, damn the expense. Meanwhile Americans worry about our government’s deficit, and seem to prefer the “freedom” to decide whether they will have health coverage, even when that choice is often constrained by cost or eligibility requirements. Given their national showdown over retirement age, imagine the French reaction to a proposal to give them the American Health Care System.

In place of free universal health care President Sarkozy could offer his people – well, nothing. The American system is really not so much a system as a set of possibilities. It is possible, if you are lucky, that your employer (if you are lucky enough to have a job), will provide health insurance. In this case it is likely you will have to pay a substantial part of the premium, as well as an annual deductible, co-payments, etc. And that is the best possibility. On second thought, were Sarkozy to propose Le Sisteme Americain, there would probably be little protest. After all, he would quickly be deemed insane, removed from office, and given a lifetime of free psychiatric care.

A few years ago the Chicago chapter of the American Lung Association left the national organization to form its own independent entity: the Respiratory Health Association of Chicago. At the time it was an unusual move.

Yet in recent weeks we have seen two more major affiliates of well-known national nonprofits leave the fold. Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, in Northern California, is now Golden Gate Community Health, and KCET, the PBS affiliate in Los Angeles, recently announced its intention to leave the PBS family in January 2011.

Each of these situations is unique and involves a combination of differing perspectives, financial tensions and interpersonal conflicts, but I wonder if economic pressures are increasingly going to drive large affiliates of national organizations to leave behind their household brand name in favor of independence.

KCET will lose access to crucial PBS programs such as Sesame Street, while the two health organizations named above will continue to offer the same service but without the benefit of instant name recognition.

Given the demands of participation in a national organization (financial, programmatic, quality review, brand usage and the like) we may see additional large affiliates deciding they can do better on their own.

In the short run that may be true, but it remains to be seen whether they can replace the instant name recognition and credibility of their former national partners with local support. And of course there is always the possibility – indeed the likelihood – that the national organization will establish a new franchise in the same area, providing a high profile competitor who will build on the previous organization’s name recognition, now abandoned.

Stay tuned.