Over at The Daily Beast, David Frum, who is both a former Canadian liberal and an ex-speechwriter for George Bush the Lesser, has managed to write a column which, while it claims to be critical of Obama, proposes in fact a much more radical proposal. Hence, apparently channeling his inner Trotsky / FDR (those two are the same, right?), Frum says that what O-care needs is to:
... change the financing mechanism so that it does not entirely fall on a few people, to rely less on Medicaid, and to accelerate cost controls. (It would also be desirable to end the distinction between Medicare and health insurance for those under-65s, but that' s another story.)
Sounds a whole lot like single-payer to me, something which Frum, as a Canadian, knows a lot about.
Truly, you have to read this article. Frum really makes the case for why universal health care is a good idea. He calls it "conservative" but really the points he makes are indistinguishable from the progressives. Here's the last reasons advanced by Frum:
5) It enhances national unity. The existing health system disproportionately leaves ethnic minorities exposed to risks of premature death, disability, and illness. Universal health coverage makes all feel in this one respect at least equally part of society and nation.
6) It's the right thing to do. "To make men love their country, their country ought to be lovable," wrote Edmund Burke. The United States will be a better country without this unnecessary fear pressing on millions of its people—and a better country will be a stronger country.
President Obama could not have said it any better. I don't think Frum's going on that
National Review cruise any time soon.