There may be a national consensus that healthcare needs to be fixed. But even a glance at the presidential candidates' positions on healthcare issues shows there is barely any agreement about how to do the fixing.

 

On the Democrat side, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama offer proposals that would (more or less) require people to have healthcare coverage. 

 

Republican contenders Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani, all argue (more or less) than a freer market will create more opportunities for people to choose to buy less expensive, better coverage.

 

So: Should government mandate that people to be covered, or provide better choices? A spirited (to understate) debate over mandates has broken out on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. 

 

First, Bill Clinton's former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wrote an editorial arguing that universal coverage should be the goal--but that  healthcare mandates are not necessary or wise.

 

Today the Journal's business-oriented readers shot back--arguing against mandates, which Reich did not support. Small business owners, conservative politicians and disinterested citizens all beat down the idea that government should require healthcare mandates.

 

So here we have two groups in apparent agreement--mandates are not necessary to fixing healthcare--but exerting themselves mightly in an attempt to disagree.  

 

A taste of the commentary:

 

Is Prof. Reich incapable of factoring in the free-market economy or understanding why he should?

Stephen B. Waters
Rome, N.Y.

 

As the general election near, there is much talk about a bi-partisan approach to healthcare reform. From here, it looks like there's a long way to go.