If you're the type of person who thinks that the two political parties are more interested in jockeying for power than they are in advancing substantially different policies, you may want to take a look at this, with regard to health care reform. Is the ability to forego a financial benefit morally superior than a mandate? Is it more effective in promoting universal coverage than a mandate. Is the effectiveness argument outweighed by the moral argument? Or vice versa? Ultimately, which side has the high ground?
You're welcome to decide for yourself; you know where I stand. But the article in this case indirectly raises serious questions about whether we can work together at all. Which means, ultimately, that it raises serious questions about whether our democracy still functions as one.
I hope that we can come up with the right answers to those questions.