They're discussing health care. And credit where credit is due: I was inspired by Clinton on this. She was talking about how if someone doesn't get/have insurance (and can't afford to pay for it themselves) then the cost of their treatment is spread among every one else. (Yeah, umm humm that what insurance is. If I don't need care then I'm just subsidizing everybody else. I do understand that there is a 'freerider' difference but that's just how it struck me.)
So then you need a system whereby there can be no free riders. and you need a second layer of insurance/subsidy for those who can't afford the premiums. Together it really starts to look like single payer, doesn't it? But, I understand that in the US there is a strong desire for competition (which does tend to foster efficiency of a sort (of course, whether efficiency is the highest good one could want from a health care system (or an economic system) is open to debate (I propose that it may not be))) so, couldn't you preserve that competition by having the government collect premiums(taxes) and then allow people to pick their insurance company/policy/coverage, whom the government would then pay at a default rate. (with a default backup if the person does nothing. ie congressional insurance?) Proceed as currently, for care and payment. Of course you leave open the possibility for people to pay their insurance provider at a higher rate for additional services, which creates what in Canada is called a 2 tier health care system and is considered bad, but which i expect few americans would have any reservations about.