This point from Harold Meyerson is where the health care debate ought to start:
Every other nation with an advanced economy long ago secured universal health care for its citizens — an achievement that the United States alone finds beyond the capacities of mortal man.
One might also add that health outcomes in those countries are generally superior to ours for sometimes half the money. Notice also that the plans that these other countries have implemented are far to the "left," as it were, of anything being considered today. In light of that, Michael Gerson's endorsement of centrism merely because it is centrism is baffling:
Some may accuse such moderates of lacking in boldness or ambition. It is better than lacking in responsibility and good judgment.
I suppose I should mention that Gerson hasn't done anything (in the rest of the piece) to establish that moderates have exhibited anything like good judgment. He has simply assumed that the moderate position is superior to the one advocated by "liberal interest groups." Yet, as Meyerson points out, the fiscally responsible good judgment seems to be far to the left of anything being proposed. Few also could deny that the current system has been a striking success for anyone not in the insurance business. In light of the reality we face, and the possibilities actually realized in every other nation with an advanced economy, one wonders what the virtues of the moderate position, because it is the moderate position, must be.