WASHINGTON -- At its most recent gathering, the National Governors Association was explicit on the question of prescription drug insurance coverage for severely squeezed elderly Americans - a national problem if ever the adjective applied.
Whatever the solution, the National Governors Association said in a policy resolution (remember, well over half its 50 members are Republicans) aimed at both Congress and the current and any potential replacement administration, do not construct it in a way that places administrative burdens or costs on the individual states.
It's a recipe for chaos, went the reasoning, as well as the worst kind of unfunded mandate (to use the governors' favorite pejorative) to impose on the states at a time when drug prices are exploding with no end in sight.
So what does George W. Bush do? Ignoring his colleagues, and instead juggling special-interest group political interests, he comes up with a plan aimed like a dagger right at the states' vital interests, as well as dependent on them.
It was the kind of mistake that could only have been made by a governor from one of the minority of states that under his ''leadership'' has done absolutely nothing to help in this area.
By contrast, plodding and boring Al Gore - so plodding and boring that he actually enjoys talking policy with people who know their subject - listens and responds with a proposal to give the elderly a way of getting desperately needed coverage through an old, reliable friend called Medicare.
To understand, consider a fairly typical chunk of real estate called northern New England, and in particular a battleground state called New Hampshire.
As the national politicos were striking their primary sets last winter, Governor Jeanne Shaheen had the typically good sense to convene a planning session in Concord with her two upcountry brothers, Governors Howard Dean of Vermont and Angus King of Maine. Their mission - instead of some silly notion of ''solving'' a problem that knows no borders - was to figure out how to at least pool their populations to enhance their negotiating clout with drug companies to at least make a difference at the margin on the price front.
Next month, Shaheen told me last week, the new group will begin soliciting formal proposals from insurers. The thinking is that in an initial phase those in the Medicaid program, which includes those in nursing homes and other assisted living arrangements, would form a natural pool. Subsequently, the hope is to be able to add other populations on a voluntary basis - retired state employees, for example.
It can make a difference, but there is no claim that it can make the difference. Shaheen, again with typical diligence, has already learned the lesson by helping the elderly in her state get discounts on their drug purchases from public-spirited pharmacies.
Almost at once, she said, fully 75,000 people signed up - a dramatic indication of how big this problem is, given that the total number of seniors without drug coverage in New Hampshire is 83,000, or about a third the total Medicare population.
Such a program, laudable though it is, can hardly do more than make a dent in the problem, since the problem is the drug companies, not the drug stores.
The Bush campaign was flat wrong in claiming that a national program - either for the poor or the nonpoor - can build on 23 existing state programs. As in northern New England, the real picture is quite different.
For the 28,000 New Hampshire elderly who live on less than $13,000 a year, there are no details about proposed benefits or restrictions. For everybody else, there is just the vague, unfunded promise of life on the desperate lookout for an insurance company willing to cover drug costs as part of a managed care alternative to Medicare.
Currently, there are none, a hint of how meaningless private insurance ''choice'' for those in need is.
From Gore, there is Medicare and choice, with specific benefits and affordable costs (none for the poor). Simple as that.
Thomas Oliphant is a Globe columnist.
