I’m sorry to hear about your mother. I hope things work out.

Your desire to have affordable health care for everyone is commendable, and I share that desire. There are some very real economic concerns. It is a zero sum game. Adding 20 or 40 million people to the system will result in rationing the current resources. There’s no way around it. Adding a bureaucracy on top will make everything more expensive. There’s no way around it. Adding a public option will result in every business dropping private coverage. There’s no way around it. When you put all of that together it does not make for a better system. It makes for a failed system. We will go from some of us not having adequate coverage to everyone having coverage that is totally inadequate. That is not an improvement. Do we need some changes? YES. These just aren’t the changes we need.

Most people that I engage in conversations about health care reform, who are outside of my admittedly wonky world, don’t come with other alternatives. They merely are repeating soundbites that they hear on Fox News and talk radio. I know, because I listen to those stations as well – and can spot a soundbite from a mile away. Their opinions are not informed and they take what they hear as the gospel truth. They can choose to be insulated and, like Luke said above, merely listen to people who they agree with and don’t have to enter into other people’s worlds. Those are conversations that I have great difficulty having without resulting to utter frustration and considering them drones on this particular topic.

To your point, Kenton, I have heard Limbaugh’s plan and others and have debated and discussed, and even strategized with other consevative friends and colleagues in the industry on BOTH sides. Sometimes, we walk away having learned something from one another and even agreeing with some of the others’ points. And, for the most part these conversations do have a civil tone and language to them. They are difficult conversations, and I enjoy dialogue. I think that is often because of how we approach the conversation – engaged and informed. Most people in the public square on health care, and many other issues, aren’t. They are reactionary – reacting to what they hear instead of discerning and investigating it.

I do think that Tort reform and eliminating pre-existing conditions exclusions, and making coverage portable will help, they will not ultimately make health insurance reform affordable to many who are low-wage working individuals. So, until they can show how those needed policy shifts can really make coverage affordable for folks who care for our children or our elders for example – then, there is only so far that I can truly consider their proposals as a solution.

The “other side” is willing to contribute ideas, but the party in power doesn’t want to hear them, and since they don’t need bi-partisan support, they’re not really trying to draft a bi-partisan plan.

Tql- I realize that being civil and gracious is difficult, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. I’m also pretty certain those “Fox news drones” find your (assumed) appreciation for CNN and the Democrats equally distasteful to their values. As a person who follows Jesus, I’m not sure calling anyone made in God’s image a drone is the best way to begin a conversation, much less win them over to your set of values. I think speaking from your passion rather than your anger is a better bet.

For me it also comes down to values – and people who sound like Fox News drones do not share my values and it is incredibly difficult to have a discussion with them about an issue that I am passionate about and affects me personally and professionally.