David Brooks's column in the Times...

...today is so maddening I just have to respond. It's about health care reform, and Brooks begins by listing all the drawbacks to the Affordable Care Act: 

The case against Obamacare is pretty straightforward. In the first place, blah, blah, blah... (I'll let you read the rest.) 

To which I say: The Affordable Care Act was the best health care reform bill that could get passed. Is it perfect? Of course not. I, and many others, would have simply preferred Medicare For All. No need for 2,700 pages (or however long the bill is; who cares?); just three simple words: Medicare For All. 

Brooks then goes on to say: 

Moreover, there are alternatives. Despite what you’ve read, there is a coherent Republican plan. Blah, blah, blah... (I'll let you read the rest.) 

To which I say: Okay, so the Republicans do have a health care plan after all (why is it such a secret?). They'll never propose it even if they have a majority; Mitch McConnell has said as much. And that's because the Republicans don't want health care reform. They represent the parties that benefit the most from our dysfunctional health care system. The ACA was essentially the GOP response to HillaryCare back in the early 1990s. Once the Clinton plan was defeated, the Republican plan went back up on the shelf where it belonged (as far as they're concerned). Then, when President Obama and the Democrats resurrected it in 2009 the Republicans shouted, "Socialism!" 

Please. 

To repeat: the ACA is not a perfect law. It was the best law that could get passed. Given the choice,  Democrats would prefer Medicare For All. And as for any Republican plans out there, I'll take them seriously when the Republicans do.