Let's get it right

The Politico on GOP alternative healthcare plans, including one by Rep. Mark Kirk (R-10th):

Kirk, who also began drafting his plan months ago, was a little more explicit in his desire to offer legislation that would appeal to voters’ clear preference to keep their current plans.

Part of it ain't broke, so let's not mess with that. Most Americans who have health insurance are happy with it, so let's focus on fixing the problem for those not covered, and make sure we can ensure affordability as well as choice. Yuval Levin looks at the Obama administration's latest offering:

There has been something very odd about the logic of the Democrats’ case on health-care reform the past few months. Rather than focus on access and the uninsured, as they have usually done and as Obama did during the campaign, they’re talking about their massive expansion of the government’s role in American health insurance as a way to save money, and focusing a lot of attention on the (unquestionably pressing) need to control health care costs. The trouble is, they don’t actually have any plan to control health-care costs.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers released a report this morning that offers a good example of this peculiar approach. It’s basically a 50-page explanation of how wonderful it would be if we could reduce the rate of growth of health-care spending. It’s called “The Economic Case for Health Care Reform,” and it makes a strong case. But it’s not a case for Obama-style health-care reform. In fact, the examples it offers of the causes of rising health-care costs are mostly examples of government-driven inefficiency, especially in Medicare, which hardly argues for a government run insurance “option.”

Emphasis mine. Let's get it right. One size does not fit all, and we don't want to be stuck with something expensive that doesn't work.