“Rumor has it” that Sanjay Gupta is out of the running to become the nation’s chief medical spokesperson. If a TV reporter-MD didn’t make the cut to be our next Surgeon General, then who can? Howard Dean!

The six-term Governor from Vermont just came out of a successful run as DNC chairman, and, judging by his recent onslaught of media appearances, he’s not exactly shy about discussing health care issues and pushing for health care reform.

Dean brings several qualities to the table:

- As a former governor, Dean has experience reforming the health care system (he expanded universal health care for children and pregnant women in Vermont).

- As a doctor, Dean personalizes the health care debate and can credibly debunk critics who argue that health reform would “ration” care.

- He has the ability to distill complicated health care wonkery into every day language.

- Dean recently said that real health reform requires a public option. He will challenge Obama to stick to progressive health principles.

- He is very good at staying on message (especially when it comes to health care reform). During our interview and in multiple media appearances, Dean reiterated his commitment to a public option (over and over again).

So it’s time for the media to stop asking Dean about the already-filled HHS position, and start asking about the (soon-to-be) vacant surgeon general position.

[upd

Some political pundits have portrayed former Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) as a wacky liberal caricature, whose online supporters spam blog comment sections in favor of single-payer health care. But during an exclusive interview with ThinkProgress, Dean described parts of his own health care philosophy as conservative.

Rather than advocating for a broad overhaul of the health care system, for instance, Dean argued that we can build on what works in our current system and reform health care by giving Americans the choice of keeping their existing insurance plan or enrolling in a new public option.

Dean predicted that more Americans would chose a public plan, but he ultimately argued against a single-payer proposal:

The American people will preferentially choose Medicare, but not all of them will choose Medicare. So we will have a hybrid system. Many more people will be in a public sector because it will probably be better for them. But they will only be in the public sector if they want to be, and they can get out of the public sector if they choose to try something different later on. That seems fair to me. I don’t think we should impose a single payer on everybody, but I do think we should give Americans the choice of having one if they like it. If it works for them, that’s what they’ll choose; if it doesn’t work for them, they’ll choose the private sector. But I don’t buy that the private sector has a right to compete and be more inefficient. I don’t think anybody has a right to serve people worse than somebody else just because they’re private sector.

Watch it:

Dean proposes an interesting framework for opposing critics who argue that progressive plans would result in a “government-take over” of health care. At their core, progressive proposals compliment true conservative values of personal freedom/choice and business competition, and push back against those who want a monopoly of private sector options.

Obama, for instance, establishes a government framework within which private insurers can compete with a new public plan on a level playing field. The key here is ‘regulated competition.’ Health care system can’t function in a real free market. Free markets require informed consumers and plenty of comparison options. But when we get really sick, we don’t really challenge professional medical opinion or haggle over the price of a given procedure. We put our trust in our doctors and hope for a speedy recovery.

Ultimately, health care is like no other consumer good: it’s about life and death not likes and dislikes. Obama is trying to re-orient the system so that it competes on the quality of care, not the quantity. He’s applying free-market principles, but he’s staying away from the extremes. It’s something Dean’s critics may also want to consider.

Right-wing fringe groups are trying to turn a debate about health care reform into a culture war. They’ve launched a campaign against HHS designee Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS), arguing that her appointment “is a threat to the health and well-being of our country“:

- She has had a close personal and financial association with the nation’s most infamous abortion doctor, George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions.” [Family Research Council]

- Sebelius honored Tiller and his entire abortion clinic staff at the Governor’s mansion in April 2007. Tiller has contributed thousands of dollars to Sebelius and to her PAC. [The Liberty Council]

- With Obama’s appointment of Gov. Sebelius to the Department of Health and Human Services, he might as well be appointing George Tiller. [Operation Rescue]

- Sebelius, governor of Kansas – the late-term abortion capital of the world – is a threat to the health and well-being of our country and her appointment must be stopped. [American Life League]

While Sebelius vetoed legislation that would have allowed a woman’s relatives to sue an abortion provider, and bills that violated women’s privacy, she has “worked to reduce the number of abortions by supporting expanded prenatal care and adoption incentives.” As Catholics United points out, “the governor has had disagreements over public policy with leaders in her Church. Yet their disagreement has never been over the morality of abortion, but over what prudential policy is best in dealing with abortion in Kansas.”

Indeed, abortion rates declined 10 percent during Sebelius’ first three years as governor and Americans United for Life has even ranked Kansas as the 14th best state for Defending Life in 2009. As for her George Tiller connections, those too are overstated. Tiller and his staff won a dinner with Sebelius “in a fund raising auction.” Sebelius “has not taken financial contributions from Tiller as a gubernatorial candidate or as governor” and even appointed the Attorney General who is looking into allegations that Tiller did not properly fill out abortion paperwork.

None of this is an issue, and it shouldn’t be a big concern during confirmation. It’s just a fund raising tactic for the Right.

Yesterday, ThinkProgress interviewed former Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) about the health care crisis. This is the first in a series of posts from that interview.

Asked to lay out his principles for reforming the health care system, Dean suggested that the government should offer free health coverage to young people, but should not require them to purchase insurance:

I don’t have an objection to a mandate. And I know Senator Clinton – now Secretary of State Clinton – who I have enormous respect for — argued for one. The president is considering changing his mind and doing one. I don’t have strong feelings against it. I just don’t think it will work. I don’t think the American people like mandates.

Watch it:

Some progressives have argued that you can’t fully eliminate cost shifting, manage chronic diseases or invest in preventive care without bringing everyone into the system. In part, they view the mandate as a cost containment measure. Dean is proposing a different option. Offer free health care coverage to Americans under 25 year of age (they’re cheap to insure and you can catch diseases before they become too expensive to treat) and spend less on expensive diseases down the road. (Remember, 80% of our health care dollars go towards treating chronic diseases).

Meanwhile, Matt Yglesias argues, “it’s not that a mandate is such a terrible thing, but it’s primary purpose is to keep insurance companies in business once progressive stuff like community rating and guaranteed issue policies are put in place. If I were in congress, I’d write a bill that has community rating and guaranteed issue. Let the insurance companies fight for the mandate! Make them deliver some votes for a “compromise” featuring all three. But there’s no particular reason that this favor to insurance firms should be defined as constitutive of the progressive health care agenda.”

Transcript: Read more