a "bizarre" debate? Michael Kinsley makes a key observation about the prescription drug benefit being considered by Congress:

Thought of as insurance, the crazy-quilt set of benefit levels and cutoffs in the House bill and the slightly-less-crazy quilt rejected by the Senate were both attempts to insure against two different risks. One is the risk of being poor. The other is the risk of large drug costs. The principles underlying these efforts are that nobody should have to go without needed medicines because of a lack of money, and that no one—whatever his or her financial situation—should have to pay more than about $4,000 a year for needed medicines. Put like that, the second principle seems odd.

Kinsley goes on to recommend that Congress focus its attention on providing prescription drugs for poor people. While this makes practical sense (at least compared with providing prescription drugs for everybody), it doesn't make political sense. The AARP demands that

the Senate to make good on a long-standing promise to provide critical relief from the soaring cost of prescription drugs and to make them more affordable to those who need them the most.

Not "more affordable to those who can't afford them." But rather "more affordable to those who need them most." The AARP's position statement is clear:

It's important that a prescription drug benefit be available to everyone in Medicare, because middle-income older people, as well as those with low incomes, need help with prescription drug costs.

(As it stands, I need help with moving costs, though I don't have the AARP on my side, and so I'm not expecting Congress to step up to the plate.) Kinsley's second principle seems "odd" because he left out an important part. It should read: "No one represented by the AARP should have to pay more than about $4,000 a year for needed medicines." But does that make the debate "bizarre" or just business as usual?