Hm. Watching the Obama presser, his answer to Jake Tapper’s question about whether Americans might have to give something up in order to get universal coverage - Obama pretty much dodged it. About how if one doc is ordering tests and another doc is ordering the same tests, etc… I mean, it’s obviously going to be more than that. And I don’t say that as an argument against health care reform that involves maybe taxing both the richest 1 percent and taxing those with existing benefits.

But the bottom-line moral question is: Are the health-care haves going to sacrifice anything on behalf of the health care have-nots? And if the answer is no, I got mine, screw you, then no, health care reform isn’t going to pass. But Obama’s problem here is that instead of leveling with the American people, he’s trying to pretend that no one’s going to have to give up anything - and that’s just false.

He’s taking that line because Americans are eminently selfish; the days of pay any price, bear any burden are loooooong gone, and to counsel sacrifice - sacrifice! - on behalf of those who are well and truly screwed, that is a political non-starter. No. We don’t want to hear about our moral responsibility to aid those who are without health care, maybe facing bankruptcy as a result. We want the free lunch. And so the only way you’re going to sell it is to pretend that it is a free lunch - instead of a situation where those with lunch money help those with none to pick up a few items in the a la carte line.