There is no question that our politicians--the people that make the decisions where government involvement in health care is concerned--have done very little to actually move us in the direction of universal health care. The Clintons' attempt, early on in the first Clinton Administration, fell flat on its face. And that was with the Democrats in control of the White House as well as Congress. In this election, it's once more a key issue, with both Obama and Clinton touting their plans as the best way to go.

So let's say that the American people, the majority of whom don't look at issues in any great detail (unfortunately), are sold on the general concept of universal health care--which is what Jack is promoting in this thread. (Not sure how we got here from a thread with a title leading one to believe that it had to do with the 2nd Amendment . . . maybe only very healthy people should own guns!) Come November, the choice is between either Obama or Clinton and their plans for universal health care on the one hand, and McCain on the other--whose proposals on health care are far less sweeping, more or less nibbling around the edges of the issue. If enough Americans buy into the concept that universal health care=great idea, without understanding that not all universal health care plans are good, much less great . . . we might end up electing a president who will move us in the wrong direction on health care. The devil, folks, remains in the details. And since Jack himself, who's advocating the general concept of universal health care, tells us that he likes neither Hillarycare nor Obamacare . . . well, I'm going to remain a skeptical American and look beyond that general concept before I jump on anyone's bandwagon. I know most voters probably won't do that, but I certainly wish they would. And they may wish they had, if we end up with either the Clinton or the Obama plan.

It all reminds me of a theme in the recent (and excellent) movie, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" There's a campaign for governor going on, and the incumbent isn't a very admirable fellow. His opponent is Homer Stokes, "the reform candidate". A lot of voters know they need reform--government almost always does, after all--but Stokes is none too clear about the details of his "reform" policies. And fortunately for the good citizens of the state, before the election takes place, Stokes' true qualities are revealed--and it turns out that the incumbent, feet of clay and all, is a better choice. It's an excellent parable, demonstrating why voters need to examine the details involved in the implementation of any very general concept, whether it be "reform" or "universal health care".