All things considered, Harry and Louise–that folksy, fictional, middle-class couple that helped kill First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's healthcare reform proposals back in the mid-90s–might very well vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton this time around in her quest for the White House.

Why? Because health insurance is a dream for so many people (who don't have any coverage), and a nightmare for far too many lucky enough to have a policy.

Sure, Hillary copied a lot of ideas from her Democratic competitors–particularly John Edwards, who I think would make a terrific Secretary of Health & Human Services, charged with securing universal coverage in the next Clinton Administration.

But so what if she's a copy cat? If the ideas have merit and mass appeal, without scaring the life out of everyone–as Hillary did in her first clumsy attempt during her husband's administration–why not second the motion, tinker a bit and get on with the job at hand?

Does her plan have gaping holes? Of course! She promises everyone “affordable” coverage without defining the term, and without explaining how she might pull off this nifty trick. But you can't reform one-sixth of the U.S. economy in a 12-page position paper. Elect her, and she'll begin the hard work that it's going to take to put her plan into action.

She also says everyone will be required to have coverage, but admits she has yet to come up with an enforcement process. But at least we're certain that millions of more people would have greater access to coverage–and therefore to medical care.

Will ending tax cuts for upper-income earners free up enough cash to pay for all this? Perhaps, if she succeeds, as she vows, in cutting administrative expenses. But keeping the lid on soaring healthcare costs has long bedeviled many a well-intentioned reformer.

We're at the point where analysts are relieved that businesses “only” had to swallow a 6.1 percent premium hike this year–the smallest increase in eight years! That's dramatically higher than general inflation (especially if you take energy out of the equation) and GDP growth. So good luck with that! But at least she's trying to set this cockamamie system straight.

In any case, all this bantering over details is all beside the point.

The fact is that since the Health Insurance Association of America flooded the TV airways with its devastating ad campaign against First Lady Clinton's overly complicated proposal, tens of millions of more people have lost their health insurance coverage. Between 46 and 50 million people–far too many of them children–are estimated to be going bare today. That is a national disgrace.

But as Michael Moore wisely spotlighted in his documentary “Sicko,” our problem is not “just” that so many millions have no coverage–either because of cost, pre-existing conditions, loss of a job or other problems. It's also that the safety net covering so many people lucky enough to have insurance has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

Insurers too often play a shell game with “claimants” (in other words, people who were sick or injured and had to have treatment). Either your claim is rejected outright, or one must pay a ton of expenses out of pocket because some drug or treatment is just not included in the policy, while even covered treatments leave folks with soaring copays and deductibles.

Meanwhile, the boogeyman cited by Harry and Louise–that under Hillary's original plan, we would lose the ability to choose our own doctors–has gone out the window with the tightening of managed care networks, and the growing number of practitioners who won't accept any insurance at all because of what carriers pay and the difficulty in getting reimbursed.

For that reason, no matter which candidate you prefer (or fear), if a Democrat is voted into the White House (still a big if), expect healthcare reform before the next midterm elections, period!

The Republican candidates come across as clueless about this critical pocketbook issue. Even Mitt Romney–who, as governor of Massachusetts, actually implemented a universal healthcare law–now says he's against “government” insurance.

None of the Republican candidates offer any solutions that will even come close to addressing the problems afflicting to so many millions. Indeed, Rudy Giuliani actually wants to encourage employers to end their company health plans, confident the not-so-tender mercies of the free market will see to it that people have coverage if you give them a tax break to pay for it.

(The problem with Rudy's logic is one must have the money to pay the premiums upfront before taking the tax break, and far too many don't have $15,000 or so lying around).

Forget the Iraq war. I think the Democrats will take this election because people are increasingly concerned about losing their health coverage, as well as the soaring costs they must pay and shrinking benefits they must endure (if they have coverage at all).

What do you folks think?

Special Reports /

Harry & Louise Will Vote For Hillary

Related Stories

Recommended For You