Debate is in many ways the lifeblood of a democracy.

By arguing politics and policy, for instance, we keep each other honest and the consensus we build is always preferable to bloodletting, in my book.

There are times I even love to argue, and not just the “no it isn’t, yes it is” type of contradictions that made for the only really funny Monty Python skit ever performed

— aptly named “The argument sketch.”

I can’t remember many arguments I’ve won, but I don’t think anyone ever needed medical attention after any of them. And when those arguments ended in a draw, there was always a sense that we could agree to disagree.

It seems that some arguments today, however, are becoming far too bitter, too personal, and too boiled down.

We don’t seem to engage in constructive debate any more. We just resort to simple two word phrases like “You lie!”

Watch television and you’ll likely notice the odd television commercial, paid for by this group or that group you’ve never heard of, telling you to call your congressman or congresswoman and tell them to keep their money-grubbing Washington, D.C., hands out of your health care.

Perhaps it’s warranted. Perhaps it’s not.

I’m sure there are some people out there perfectly satisfied with their health care and comfortable in the belief that no ailment or situation will ever arise that will cause them worry or financial ruin.

But who doesn’t know someone, or work for a business, that isn’t worried or comfortable in such beliefs?

Businesses that still provide their employees with coverage have been facing double-digit increases in health care premiums every year. Those who can’t afford the double-digit rate increases have been passing those costs to their employees, who likely find their paychecks shrinking.

People who once took pride in their “Cadillac” health care plans with all the bells and whistles often now find themselves in plans with high deductibles and limitations on what doctors they can see, what tests will be performed, and what drugs can be prescribed.

Sooner or later, there’s going to be a tipping point and perhaps it’s already arrived.

Average Joes who don’t get health coverage at work face decisions like buying health care coverage on the open market, selecting compromise plans, or going without it entirely.

I paid for my own coverage for a few months between jobs once and it’s no fun. I’m still somewhat young, with no nagging health problems, and continuing my coverage with my former employer was costing me close to $500 a month.

Unable to stomach my shrinking check book balance for too long, I soon switched to insurance coverage that I liked to call the “worst case scenario” plan. It didn’t cover anything basic, such as a checkup, and only applied to catastrophic situations. Essentially, it only assured my retirement nest egg wouldn’t be wiped out if I had a heart attack or was in a bad car accident.

That “worst case scenario” plan cost me about $140 a month. Luckily, I had the resources to at least afford that much.

But how many people do you know who have ignored a symptom, or treated themselves at home with overthe counter remedies, because they feared the costs of going to a doctor or hospital, where an aspirin tablet has a way of showing up on a bill as a $40 charge?

I’d be the first to raise my hand if you asked whether anyone had doubts a government-run health care system would solve the problems. I have doubts just about any time a bureaucracy is involved in anything.

I’m also a free-market thinker at heart. Doctors, especially the really good ones, deserve whatever they make. I didn’t go to medical school or spend years in residency to be good at brain surgery or to find cures for the diseases that can affect me, my family, or my friends.

But I’m not fearful of a good debate on the topic of health care reform, even if I may not necessarily like where the debate is headed. It’s an argument worth having, if not for me. then for my children, my neighbors, their children, the members of my church or my coworkers.

With that said, however, there are some things I can’t imagine arguing. Take, for instance, the latest argument occurring in Hollywood.

Perusing the wires the other day, I came across a story that some Hollywood elite are flabbergasted and downright consternated that an allegedly brilliant film director was arrested last week in Switzerland on a three-decade old criminal charge by California and that a Los Angeles prosecutor has nothing better to do than ruin that director’s life on a charge they believe is best left forgotten.

The film buffs among you likely know Roman Polanski’s name, if not his work, as well as his situation.

He fled the United States three decades ago to avoid sentencing on a sexual assault charge levied against him for allegedly drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl.

I don’t know Polanski.

I don’t know any Hollywood elite.

I don’t know the formerly 13-year-old girl, now a grown woman who apparently no longer wishes to prosecute the case against her attacker.

But how could someone believe anyone should be given a free pass for accusations so heinous?

How could anyone argue that Polanski, who by all reports has lived a life of luxury since fleeing the United States to a country that wouldn’t send him back, be absolved without at least coming back to a United States court to plead his case?

No matter how the arguments are phrased I can’t envision any in Polanski’s favor.

But I guess that’s the nature of arguing today — that the subject of the argument no longer matters as long as there are some people willing to take sides.

I guess that’s the ultimate contradiction. “No it isn’t! Yes it is!”