Dear Editor:

The author of this article misses the point: most advanced-capitalist countries can provide universal and better health care to their citizens at a far lower cost. The disadvantages of their systems are vastly inferior to the advantages of the U.S. system, unless one is at the very top of the income spectrum. Furthermore, even the experience in our country, with Medicare, with Medicaid, and with the healthcare system of the Veterans Administration, proves that medical care can be administered to each citizen for less money and a higher level of quality.

These has been a great deal of discussion about the "uninsured," as if those with insurance are really getting the sort of care that they need and are happy with it, just because they have, and can afford, some sort of insurance. Moore is entirely correct to focus on those with insurance, as he shows us just what kind of coverage we really have, which is, by the way, far more expensive than private insurance in other advanced capitalist countries, which have policies which offer more complete and insured coverage.

The author of this article is entirely inaccurate when she writes that "Hillary Clinton's healthcare initiative was undone partially by her own idealism: Given the chance to settle for a system that would have been an improvement on the one we've got, she held out for perfection.." when actually the opposite was true. Ideally, the Clintons, and anyone else who has thought rationally about this problem, would have supported a socialized governement administered "single-payer" system similar to that in Canada, Britain and France. Instead, they tried to forge a compromise with the private insurance by having the government-funded plans administered by private corporations. Why? Because even if they knew that this was not the best way, they were more interested in the result, getting every American insured, rather than perfection. Once every American was insured, the discussion could then shift from how to get universal coverage to what would be a better and more efficient way to have it which might eventually lead to further reform.

Unfortunately, their attempt to compromise with the insurance companies failed, and their efforts were dismissed by the leftists for their lack-of-orthodoxy, i.e. not being a government run and funded program without private insurance.

Meanwhile, the medical insurance situation in our country continues to deteriorate...and no one seems to be able to do anything about it.

Sincerely yours,

Arthur C. Hurwitz

To the Editor:

If I understand the conculsions of this article correctly, the conflict in U.S. politics today is between a two-dimensional Aristotellian approach and a two-dimensional Platonic Approach. Meaning that rational attention to statecraft based on the achievement of rational, reality-based results, is Aristotelian and uninspirational, which is what Bill Clinton was accused of, and worse, what the other politicans of his school are derogetorily called, "policy wonks." In other words, there is something wrong with being well versed and knowledgible about the politicy issues which face our country and our society and that somehow that this has to be visionless. "Vision" only means in the realm of the military so in this paradigm the realization of ideals such as eliminating poverty, guaranteed wages, universal health insurance coverage, are "wonkish" and thus without vision.

The two-dimentional Platonic approach emphasizes the rhetoric of vision but is not able to do the Aristotilian thing: think about how exactly and effectively one's vision could be resolved. In this paradigm history just needs a push, like the invasion of Iraq, and then the vision will be realized.

As long as the political culture is explained in this manner through the mainstream media, there really is no hopt. The Platonists will triumph in elections but fail in actual policy.

Sincerely yours,

Arthur C. Hurwitz

Dear Editor:

The fact that Hillary Clinton is married to former president Bill Clinton is a trivial matter compared to the the difference that a Hillary Clinton presidency, not to mention an Edwards or Obama presidency, would make for both the the world and the conditions of life for most Americans. I would think of it in another way: Bill is signaling to us that the presidency of his wife would be a return to the policies of his administration, reality-based policies. Under his presidency there were no unnecessary wars, the economy was booming, and policy calculations were done using reason and the rational considerations. Given a choice between Hilary or any Republican candidate, I would vote for her without any sort of hesitation what-so-ever.

Sincerely yours,

Arthur C. Hurwitz

To the Editor:

There is only one real distinction between the candidates for President with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict: That of the Democrats and that of the Republicans. Any of the major Democratic candidates would revive the bipartisan foreign politicy of towards the Arab-Israeli conflict abandoned by this Bush Administration: A guarantee of Israel's security while pursuing negotiations towards a Peace settlement. Even if this settlement is never reached, the existence of a "Peace Process" limits the esculation of the violence and prevents the sort of all-out esculation violence characteristic of the past seven years.

Any of the Republican candidates as president, since they have sold out to the Religious Right, will pursue the same "hands off" policy towards the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They will pretend to engage in a Peace Process, just as Condolisa Rice is pretending to do now, while paving the way for more and more uncessary deaths, and possible regional war.

We tend to forget that which ever candidate for president becomes their party's nominee, that they bring with them a large permanent party and policy affiliated espertise. With regard to foreign policy, it means that there is little different in substanative policy if Clinton, Obama, or Edwards becomes president. The same is true for the Republicans.

Sincerely yours,

Arthur C. Hurwitz