Will we have better sausage at the end of the process?

I have always known that I learn more from having conversations with people than I do from reading a text book or a newspaper. This came home to me this past week at a meeting of people who like me are interested in health grantmaking.

On Thursday night of the Grantmaker's in Health Issue Dialogue, we were privileged to hear a panel of health policy analysts talk about the political debate on healthcare reform. It was interesting to hear the different points of view on various aspects of reform from people who knew what they were talking about and who treated each other with respect. I came away from hearing the panel discussion with a sense that no one has all the right answers in this debate. The two most divergent views were those of Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic and Michael Cannon of The Cato Institute. To get a sense of the thinking of these two men, you might look at these two articles: The House Bill is a Great Idea and Yes, Mr. President: A Free Market Can Fix Health Care.

The discussion made me think and made me wonder what others think. Can we get relief from rising healthcare costs and provide security for people related to healthcare while still protecting the rights of individuals to make decisions on their own?

I have learned more about the "sausage making" that goes on in making laws during this healthcare reform debate than in any previous political debate that I have observed. I don't like all that I am learning about the process of lawmaking but I believe we have a chance at "better sausage" because we are watching the process and having discussions. It saddens me that our lawmakers do not seem to be listening to each other or to us, their constituents. What do you think? Are we going in the right direction? Can we stand up for the less fortunate and protect individual rights? Can we have quality, affordable healthcare for all?