Public Agenda
On The Agenda The Public Agenda Blog

A More Civil Debate, But Was It More Helpful?

by Scott Bittle

Thursday, January 20th, 2011

This week's congressional debate on repealing health care reform was significantly more civil than the previous fights on this issue (with at least one notable exception). But was it more helpful to the public?

Certainly the more measured tone, part of the fallout from the Arizona shootings at a congressional event, was a relief after the hyper-partisanship of last year's debate. There's also growing momentum for a symbolic gesture of civility next week, namely having members of the two parties sit mixed together at the State of the Union instead of on opposite sides of the aisle.

Civility is a crucial first step for a more effective debate. At the same time, the House health care debate showed how the current process isn't helpful to the public.

One of the problems with the health care debate of 2009-10 wasn't just that it was angry and partisan although it certainly was but that it was also hyper-technical. Health care is a complicated issue, and there was little effort spent on trying to make it easier for the public to understand what their options are, or what the unknowns might be.

This week's debate was a chance to revisit some of these questions. But instead the House and the policy community spent much of their time debating the accuracy of Congressional Budget Office projections on the law's impact on the deficit and the economy. That's important, but it's also a technical argument that the public isn't prepared to judge for themselves particularly when Republicans and Democrats have such radically different interpretations. (These summaries from Factcheck.org on the economic and deficit implications are helpful, as is the Five Things You Need to Know About Health Care and the National Debt from Choosing Our Fiscal Future).

If any health care reform is to succeed, the public needs a sense of what the alternatives really are. If not this plan, what? What are the pros and cons, what are the tradeoffs? How does this health care bill stack up against other ideas and against a fiscally unsustainable status quo?

These are crucial factors if the public is going to make sound judgments about anything. They didn't get them in the first health care debate, and they didn't get them from this week's debate, either. A more civil tone can help that more sophisticated discussion happen but it's not enough by itself.




Comments

Comment on this article.

Subject:
Your Name (Optional):

Your Comment:



Help us prevent bot attacks.
Please enter the characters displayed above (case-sensitive).


Press to submit.