A Partial Answer

I realize I have been wholly delinquent in getting you an adequate response to your counter-challenge to me: how exactly are you going to sell universal, government-run health care? Mostly, I have not responded because I've been terribly busy and just haven't found the time to give a well-reasoned (or, at least, semi-coherent) response. (Indeed, this post is written at the expense of doing mywork and, so, I'm afraid, will be shorter than it should be.)

In part, though, the delay in response is because I've been stumped. I mean I still firmly believe that a single-payer system represents the best policy from a practical and fiscal point of view. It contains the greatest potential to curb price rises and to expand access and, in turn, to increase the health of our nation. Yet, rational solutions to complex problems, sadly, aren't all they're cracked up to be in this country (or really anywhere, I suppose, but right now I'm picking on us). Too many conflicting interests mean that policy becomes one giant compromise, rather than one coherent, Pareto-optimal strategy. (I know my use of the term "Pareto-optimal" is somewhat imprecise here, but...)

If compromise is the MO of the nexus between politics and policy, then, how is a radical solution like single-payer supposed to come to fruition? Well, as I struggled with this question, a funny thing happened. Some lady named Hillary (or something like that) showed one way of how to make 75% of the ideal sound like a reasonable compromise to all interests. Her plan of mandated coverage operating within the private insurance system -- which is based largely on the Massachusetts model -- gets us entirely to one of the goals (universal coverage) and, at least puts us on the path towards the second (curbing rising costs). Not that she would ever admit this, but I do think that her plan also prepares the groundwork for moving toward single-payer because it includes a public-private competitive component. If consumers have the option of choosing either a private or government plan that are placed on equal footing, my guess is that, over time, the government plan is going to become increasingly attractive, while the private plans -- with much larger overhead -- are going to wither on the vine.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that at this stage, I'm willing to accept the HRC health care policy -- or something very close to it -- as what is feasible at this stage in the political life of our nation and, then, as time wears on and private insurance seems increasingly flawed relative to a public system, we'll begin to see an opening for single-payer coverage. (By the way, the other two major Dem candidates propose plans with similar elements, but, IMO, Clinton's is the most complete and the only one to consider seriously the matter of the second goal of curbing costs.)

I realize that there is a lot to unpack in this statement and I regret I don't have time to do it now, but suffice it to say that in this election cycle I'm content to go for a 75% solution to begin to shift the policy debate and seek a more complete change in the future.

Does 300 million count as a crowd?

This poll from the NY Times shows that the American people, as a whole, are frequently wiser than the pundits on TV, or the politicians with their gamesmanship. While I love vocal democracy and the passion of MoveOn.org and their ilk, the mainstream Democratic candidates and Congressional leadership are doing well to avoid being overly influenced by those on the left.

BTW, while we mull over health care with all deliberate speed, what do you think about Patraeus' testimony?