By Governor Phil Bredesen

Every person in America has felt the pinch when it comes to health care and the costs associated with keeping themselves and their families healthy.

That pinch may be felt in the cost of premiums subtracted from your paycheck every two weeks; or in the frustrating process of securing affordable insurance when your company doesn’t offer it; or the basic inability to pay for coverage even if you have access in the first place.

We’ve all felt the pinch in Tennessee. And we’re not alone. The skyrocketing cost of health care is a national problem that deserves a national solution. Unfortunately, that day – when America comes together to address the issue of health care costs from a national perspective – has not yet arrived.

But as Governor of this state, I cannot in good conscience stand by and wait for the folks in Washington to act on a problem that today impacts the lives and livelihood of every hardworking man and woman in America. That’s why, earlier this year, I presented to the General Assembly my plan for what we can do here in Tennessee to offer a helping hand to our citizens – folks who work for modest wages, for small businesses, for themselves.

My proposal, which I call Cover Tennessee, is a modern, fiscally cautious, down-to-earth approach. It’s not the “end-all, be-all” solution to our problem. It is not another big government entitlement program. It is not TennCare part 2. What it is instead is a starting point that, if we’re successful, will allow us to grow step-by-step in a fiscally responsible way.

Cover Tennessee, at its most basic, is a partnership between the state, individuals, and small business that is rooted in two core principles: affordability and portability.

First, affordability. To me, that means no more than $100 a month for an individual. We plan a benefit package that has a total cost on average of about $150 a month. Of that, the state will pay $50. Where an employer is willing to contribute, a $50 contribution on their part will leave the employee to pay $50.

Second, portability. What I mean by that is simple: I want the individual, not the employer or the government, to own his or her own policy. If you sign up for Cover Tennessee through your job at a small business and you get laid off, you can take the policy with you. This proposal represents a fundamental rethinking of the way health insurance works. Health insurance should follow the individual.

To implement Cover Tennessee, we will look to the private sector. Small businesses and their employees are the heart of our economy and they can be at the heart of our solution to this problem. We will partner with small businesses to extend access to health care to working uninsured Tennesseans. We will use competition and the strength of the marketplace to our advantage. And we will get the best coverage we can buy for these Tennesseans.

This month, we’re at a critical juncture when it comes to the success of Cover Tennessee. Right now, our proposal is being considered by the General Assembly and I am very hopeful that it will pass both chambers with strong bipartisan votes. This is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue, this is a Tennessee issue. And one of the things I love most about our state is that, when Tennesseans see a neighbor in need, Tennesseans don’t hesitate to lend a hand. Through Cover Tennessee, we’re offering hardworking Tennesseans a hand up, not a handout.

Are these plans perfect? Do they cover every contingency? Will they answer every need? No. But is this a lot better than what is happening now? Does it help a great many people who truly need the help? Is it a foundation we can build upon? Absolutely, yes.

It comes back to personal responsibility – we don’t have it in our power to promise everyone free health insurance without limits. But we do have it in our power to offer them access to affordable and portable health insurance, and then the choice is theirs.

There are hundreds of thousands of hard working uninsured adults, uninsured children and uninsurable adults who need our help now. We have the opportunity and the means to help them. It is time for us to act.

Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post are wondering aloud if we might actually miss Zarqawi:

From the moment President Bush introduced him to the American people in October 2002, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi served a crucial purpose for the administration, providing a tangible focus for its insistence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

It’s not surprising a couple of WaPo writers would pose this argument, since their own paper ran a story a few months ago suggesting the military was using Zarqawi in a psyops campaign. Seems they think we molded him into the face of al Qaeda for digestion by the American public while simultaneously molding him into a dirty foriegner (Jordanian) for digestion by the Iraqi public. Apparently the campaign was designed to mask the real face of the insurgency–Saddam…al-Sadr…Badr Brigades, etc.

Read any lefty blog and you’ll find that premise, usually with a few choice invectives and a reference to Hitler for good measure. But hey, what’s wrong with a psyops campaign? Exploitation is useful and necessary sometimes, but it doesn’t mean we created Zarqawi. The ‘War on Terror’ has always been as much about psyops and intelligence than conventional war, and both sides are fervently playing the game.

Case in point–bin Laden’s Cave Committee could have easily disavowed themselves from Zarqawi long ago, but they didn’t. Rather, they puffed him into an even larger figure than we did because he met their immediate needs on the cheap.

But his sudden trip to hell might change the paradigm for everyone. If the attacks don’t decrease president Bush might be compelled to further describe who we’re still fighting and why. Somebody might even ask about Izzat al-Douri or other deck of card Ba’athists still running loose. As the earlier WaPo article alluded:

“The long-term threat is not Zarqawi or religious extremists, but these former regime types and their friends,”

But it’s doubtful we’ll see much change in the PR department. It does no good to refocus the WoT away from ‘rootless non-state actors’ based in caves to legitimate state sponsors, especially if those states are diplomatically hostile or hold certain “cards”. Best to just press on under the radar. After all, the goals are exactly the same.

cross posted at Fore Left!