Here is a classic example about how poorly the debate is often framed in our political discourse. The president has appointed Nancy-Ann DeParle to be the director of the White House Office of Health Reform. Some people are getting worked up into a lather about her need to sever her ties to the health care industry:

Since leaving the Clinton administration, Ms. DeParle has been managing director of a private equity firm, CCMP Capital, and a board member of companies like Boston Scientific, Cerner and Medco Health Solutions. White House officials said Ms. DeParle was severing ties with those companies and would recuse herself from participating in any matter that was “directly or substantially” related to former clients or employers.

“It is our view, and the view of counsel here, that the incidence of that will be very low,” an administration official said of the need for Ms. DeParle to recuse herself from decisions. The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said Ms. DeParle would be working mostly with federal agencies and lawmakers, and not directly with companies.

Allies of Ms. DeParle described her work in the private sector as a plus, because her familiarity with the industry would enable her to lean on companies to make tradeoffs essential in expanding access to the uninsured.

   You see, I don’t think the issue is whether she is severing her ties or not, or whether she will sit in a room when her former employer’s interests are on the table. My issue is more simple: what is her ideology? Having someone directing the White House health care reform project who comes out of the industry and carries that industry’s mindset means we likely can forget about enacting "Medicare for All" (single-payer), which is the only system that will solve our health care crisis. It’s her familiarity with the industry–need I say, ideological identification–and its needs that is far more troubling.