Here’s the good news: Health care has emerged as the leading domestic issue in the presidential election. Finally, candidates are talking about something that matters to every American family every day. Occasionally, Iraq even gets pushed off the front page.

Here’s the bad news: Precisely because health care is such a hot topic, many candidates in both parties deal with the issue in purely political terms, criticizing their rivals instead of seeking common ground.

Take the reaction to Hillary Clinton’s latest plan, a thoughtful proposal to extend health coverage to the 47 million people who now lack insurance. Mitt Romney immediately reached back for the oldest bromide in the Republican playbook, branding her approach “European-style socialized medicine.”

That’s plain silly, there’s nothing European or socialized about her proposal. But Democrats could be silly as well, with John Edwards blasting Clinton for consulting with “lobbyists” from drug and insurance companies. Those industries are major players in the healthcare debate, and any serious attempt at making progress – as opposed to making speeches – compels any good leader to understand their interests.

But behind all this political posturing, a national consensus is starting to emerge on two key points. The current system is broken. But it has to be fixed, not replaced. Americans want a middle ground between a free market that leaves too many citizens vulnerable, and a government-run bureaucracy that leaves too many without individual choice.