The debate about how to insure the uninsured

I recently called attention to my friend Charles Krauthammer's scathing criticism of the Democrats' health care proposals, and his alternative ideas for reducing health care costs and inefficiencies and achieving the important moral goal of insuring the uninsured.  Now Dan Pfeiffer has responded to Dr. K on the White House blog.  According to Pfeiffer, "the columnist's article may be cogent and well-written, but it is wholly inaccurate":

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/27/reality-check-column-ignores-facts

I expect Krauthammer to respond soon to Pfeiffer's response.  This is, I believe, a debate that warrants our close attention.  The fact that the fundamental moral principles proclaimed by the Catholic Church do not by themselves resolve the question of how the health care system should be structured, does not mean that Catholics have no responsibility to consider the arguments for competing alternatives and support the alternative they believe best serves the common good, all things considered.  And there are indeed many considerations to be taken into account, including costs, efficiencies, impact on overall quality of care, concern about the scope, size, and intrusiveness of government, the impact of competing alternatives on the autonomy and authority of families and other institutions of civil society, and the priority that must be given to the interests of the poorest and most vulnerable members of the community.  We should not expect Catholics and other men and women of goodwill to arrive at a common view; but this is certainly an issue on which people should make sure their opinions, whatever they turn out to be, are informed opinions, and not merely partisan ones.  If ever there were an issue on which Republicans and Democrats alike should seriously consider whether this time their own party has gotten it wrong and the other guys actually have the superior argument, this is it.