...Under the Healthy Americans Act, the federal government would discourage insurance companies from competing to avoid medically risky beneficiaries--the way they do now--by prohibiting insurers from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions. That's a whole lot of regulation. People with high incomes and generous health benefits would end up losing some of their existing tax breaks--which is to say, they would pay (slightly) higher taxes. Some conservatives are sure to attack that. And, of course, it would achieve universal coverage--the traditional Republican bugaboo. But [Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT)] has signed on to these features and, on more than one occasion, defended them. At a recent event co-sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the New America Foundation, a questioner asked Bennett what he would tell a critic who called the plan a tax hike. Bennett retorted that such a critic is "incapable of reading a piece of legislation," since the plan simply makes explicit--and redistributes more equitably--the hidden payments people already make for the nation's health care bill.

Still, there are sticking points. Early on, Bennett objected to Wyden's promise that all Americans would have insurance "as good as" the coverage members of Congress get. Bennett thought that promised too much; the federal employee system (through which members get their coverage) offers a menu of choices, with higher prices for more generous plans, and he saw no reason to promise the high-end plans for which most members of Congress presumably opt. And, while that issue was easy to finesse--Bennett just talks about giving all Americans the "same choices" that members have--it's fair to wonder how many other Republicans would go as far as Bennett has. Among the "serious concerns" [Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)] enumerated in his endorsement was "the imposition of mandates." But it's the mandates--on individuals to buy insurance, on businesses to help pay for it, and on insurers to provide it in a fair and equitable way--that make the plan work. Without them, the Healthy Americans Act would quite literally fall apart.

Not that Gregg's reticence is surprising. All the mandates and regulation in the Healthy Americans Act really are pretty antithetical to modern conservatism--more, perhaps, than Bennett wants to admit. It may not be government-run insurance, but it's still more government-- a lot more, as a matter of fact. At one point during our interview, I noted that new state agencies would get heavily involved in the business of buying and selling health insurance--screening private insurance companies to enforce standards for pricing and benefits and acting as a conduit through which people would actually select their coverage. In effect, they would become giant purchasing cooperatives--which, as it happens, is more or less what the dreaded Clinton plan would have done. Bennett denied the similarity, but his explanation wasn't particularly convincing--and it was fair to wonder whether he, or other potential GOP supporters, might change their minds once Congress takes up the issue seriously. Moreover, will bipartisanship still sound appealing if it means passing a bill for which Democrats will, undoubtedly, get most of the credit?

Bennett thinks there is plenty of political credit to go around--and warns that a strategy of pure obstruction could simply build momentum for a single-payer system. (This is one of many reasons why it's so important to keep single-payer part of the conversation; it scares opponents.) And at least one veteran of the Clinton effort--New America economist Len Nichols, who helped craft the Healthy Americans Act--is equally optimistic: "Is there enough common ground to build a real reform? Absolutely..."

This excerpt was from The New Republic. For the complete article, please visit www.tnr.com.