It's Our Health. It's Our Government.

Two political realities only some in Washington currently grasp. Health care is consistently one the top three issues [1] voters cite as priorities for the next president. And about two-thirds of voters [2] want their government to guarantee health care for everyone.

The battle for universal health care is resurfacing. The skirmish before the larger war, over expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program to cover an additional 10 million uninsured kids [3], was technically won by President Bush and his conservative forces. His veto was sustained by the conservative House minority, amidst their cries of "Socialized Medicine!"

But since two-thirds of Americans believe our government is doing "too little" [4] to provide health insurance to kids—the same super-majority that wants health care for everyone—conservatives who won the skirmish are on the verge of losing the war.

However, support for our government to play a role in guaranteeing health care coverage is not the same as support for government-only, "single-payer" health insurance system. Polls indicate that those Americans who are content with their private insurance don't want to give that up [5], a major political obstacle that conservatives have successfully exploited in the past. There's recognition that our government needs to be part of the solution, but perhaps a hesitation that the current lot in the Beltway can pull it off for everybody.

Fortunately, there's more than one way to establish health insurance for all. Campaign for America's Future has promoted the Health Care for America plan designed by professor Jacob Hacker [6], which would establish a public plan option, like Medicare, for those under 65. Employers would either have to provide quality private coverage themselves, or help fund the public plan.

We would have "guaranteed choice" between public and private insurance that competes on a level playing field. The insurance companies couldn't simply make a profit by cherry-picking healthy consumers and denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. The public plan would drive down costs while ensuring choice of health care providers. Stacked up against single-payer, the "guaranteed choice" approach, where our government plays a critical role, wins big with voters 64 percent to 22 percent [5].

After the Campaign for America's Future explained the plan to the leading Democratic candidates, they all adopted its core element: having our government provide a public plan option. No Republican candidate has offered a plan that would guarantee coverage for everyone, and all have attacked the Democratic proposals as, surprise!, "Socialized Medicine."

(Methinks they don't know what socialism is.)

Yet Democrats seemed spooked by the charge. You rarely hear them talk about the public plan component of their respective plans. You have to dig for it on their websites.

They have failed to recognize that voters are looking to their government to do what they know can't be accomplished without it. Voters have seen how far back we as a nation fell after seven years of conservative policy that loathes effective government, and they are more than ready to ratify a vision where they decide how to direct their government to serve us all.

If our leaders failed to propose it, or hesitate to talk about the role of government, we must raise our voices and push the parameters of the debate.

Otherwise, it will far harder to establish a clear mandate for what needs to be done, if we are to protect the health of ourselves and all of our children.