In looking at the debate over health care reform both on the TV and here on the internet I couldn’t help thinking how part of the problem is that many people on both sides are coming in to the debate with assumptions that prevent any real discussion.
For many on the left it is just a given that passing a large scale package with a public option and/or single payer will lower costs while insuring more people.
For many on the right it is just a given that passing such a program will cause costs to soar without helping anyone.
Obviously if you come in to the debate with one of those assumptions then it’s very hard for you to listen to the other side with much seriousness or for you to consider making compromises.
If you think passing the package will cause costs to soar and won’t help anyone then why would you want to pass it ? By the same token if you think passing the reform will make everything better and failing to include a public option will prevent that improvement, why would you agree to anything but passage.
Certainly there is evidence on both sides and perhaps that is the problem. Its not like debating whether or not it’s a good idea to grab on to a hot stove. There the evidence is clear and one sided. Here the evidence is murky at best.
Because of that I think that both sides need to really try to listen to the other side, even if they are doubtful, to at least consider both approaches. Otherwise this is just a dog and pony show.