Why is it broadly accepted that the elderly should have universal health care, while it’s immensely controversial to seek universal coverage for children? What’s the difference — except that health care for children is far cheaper?

Nicholas Kristof notes the same arguments being used against health care reform -- it's the creeping wedge of socialism, it will lead to dictatorship, old people will die -- are the same once used against Medicare and Social Security.

Today, of course, even the crustiest old Teabagger is probably not offering to give up his social security for the good of the Republic. Even a Palinite can see Social Security is a good thing.

And as for Medicare being a bad thing: Americans are more likely to die before age 65 than the citizens of any other developed country, but, once Medicare kicks in, have some of the best prospects in the developed world.

So why not give universal coverage and national health care to children? It would be cheaper than giving it to old people, and a far better investment. If America is to have a hope of thriving in the 21st century, it had better be raising a generation or two of well-educated, well-fed and healthy young people.