Edwards, Health Care And The "Sensible Center"

I’ve been pondering this column from Cokie and Steve Roberts that was reprinted in the Bucks County Courier Times Tuesday partly because I don’t know what they’re trying to accomplish here.

Are they trying to seriously inform anyone as to the different positions on the issue of health insurance presented by each candidate for president from either party (as the New York Times did here last Sunday with this excellent editorial)? No.

Are they trying to tell us about real-life stories of people who’ve experienced some of the horror of our profit-driven private care, where fewer and fewer people are covered? No (after all, the Robertses live in the accountability-free zone of pundit land, which is located primarily in the Beltway but also other regions, particularly in the South – they do throw in a lot of polling data that is supposed to impress us, though).

Well then, let me share some of what they have to say here and maybe I’ll come up with an answer. Here is an excerpt…

Take the reaction to Hillary Clinton’s latest plan, a thoughtful proposal to extend health coverage to the 47 million people who now lack insurance. Mitt Romney immediately reached back for the oldest bromide in the Republican playbook, branding her approach “European-style socialized medicine.”

That’s plain silly, there’s nothing European or socialized about her proposal. But Democrats could be silly as well, with John Edwards blasting Clinton for consulting with “lobbyists” from drug and insurance companies. Those industries are major players in the healthcare debate, and any serious attempt at making progress – as opposed to making speeches – compels any good leader to understand their interests.

And why is it “silly” for John Edwards to state the obvious? Will Big Pharma and their insurance pals ever care about leveling the playing field in the face of competition such as the type Edwards has advocated by expanding Medicare and SCHIP unless they’re forced to do so?

And by the way, what Sen. Clinton has proposed sounds highly similar to what Romney supported when he was governor of Massachusetts (as noted here).

Also, the Robertses here state in almost a celebratory manner that there is “no interest in a single-payer, government-run system modeled after Canada and Great Britain,” partly because going to the trouble of trying to explain the benefits of such a system might make them sound too much like that dangerous pinko liberal Michael Moore or something (and if John Edwards isn’t even talking about “single payer” any more, then yeah, you can pretty much write it off).

But behind all this political posturing, a national consensus is starting to emerge on two key points. The current system is broken. But it has to be fixed, not replaced. Americans want a middle ground between a free market that leaves too many citizens vulnerable, and a government-run bureaucracy that leaves too many without individual choice.

What a silly supposition. This is typical of the fear-baiting tactics of the Robertses and their ilk (with the phrase “government-run bureaucracy” designed to elicit almost on-cue salivation from those who think the Repug presidential candidates actually know what they’re talking about on this issue – and yes, I’m speaking literally here).

The issue of “single-payer” or government coverage is the fear of coverage choices being limited to control costs, not eliminated outright (and could we be more vague here, anyway) which to me doesn’t sound that much different from what some HMOs practice right now. And it never ceases to crack me up when Repugs talk about how much they supposedly love free-market competition unless it involves a corporate constituency that makes hefty campaign contributions.

The bottom line is that, though I’m not automatically in love with the idea of government-run care, I say let’s help it along a bit and see how it fares against private carriers. It sounds like a variation on the commercial jingle “when banks compete, you win” to me.

And after the Robertses quite correctly chide Dubya for his boneheaded opposition to increasing SCHIP funding, we are treated to this summary.

That’s what voters want: practical solutions that allow them and their children to “live healthier lives.” Candidates in both parties who don’t understand that, who play to their ideological base instead of the sensible center, will pay a heavy price. And they should.

But of course; how silly of me not to recognize what’s really going on here. The Robertses don’t want to actually inform or enlighten anyone on this issue.

Why, they want to sing more hosannas to “the sensible center.” Glory be!

That kind of thinking has taken us absolutely nowhere in this country when it comes to addressing the most vital issues we face. And as usual, regurgitating this stuff is a self-fulfilling prophecy (unfortunately) for the people who pen this dreck and those who believe it without question at their own risk.

And I wonder which candidate the Robertses are accusing here of playing to their “ideological base” besides Willard Mitt Romney (again, what exactly does that even mean when the Robertses don’t even bother to discuss what John Edwards has proposed)?

I’ll tell you what then; here are some actual statistics on health insurance in this country from Michael Moore courtesy of Sicko that you can consume, verify, question…whatever.

Trying to discern something intelligent from the Robertses on this issue for me, as it does for other issues on which they expound (here and here) results in a sensation similar to the one I feel whenever a doctor tells me that “I may experience some discomfort.”