Who knew that Democrats and Republicans could engage in a civil discussion with each other over a hot-button issue -- for six hours, no less -- without turning it into a verbal brawl?

Some grandstanding aside, both parties at Thursday's healthcare summit managed to mind their manners and calmly lay out their differing positions on how best to reform the way Americans get -- or don't get -- medical care.

This display of civility may turn out to be the most useful aspect of a meeting called by President Obama to see if the two sides can agree on reform.

Unfortunately, the answer seems to be No.

``There are some fundamental differences between us here that we cannot paper over,'' said one of the leading Republicans, Sen. John Kyl of Arizona.

That's why they belong to political parties with distinctly different views. But the summit also served to underline the gravity of the problems afflicting healthcare and why it is urgent to break the gridlock that has stymied reform.

One of the critical differences involves government intervention in the insurance market. In theory, the market should be able to set rates and standards, with state governments keeping them in line. That's the GOP preference, with some regulatory tightening here and there.

But recent rate hikes like the 39 percent increase by the Blue Cross provider in California -- a harbinger of what awaits other states -- suggest that the market is out of control and only the federal government has the clout and resources to protect consumers.

It is also necessary for the government to exercise control over standards lest companies be allowed to offer health insurance across state lines -- a GOP goal -- while seeking legal shelter in states with the lowest level of consumer protections (as banks and retailers already do with credit cards).

Another fundamental difference: the package. ``We don't do comprehensive well,'' said Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander. His party would like to start from scratch with a step-by-step approach that discards the far-reaching measures already passed by the House and Senate.

That won't get the job done because a piecemeal approach cripples effective reform. Example: You can't get rid of odious ``preexisting condition'' provisions that keep some of the neediest from getting coverage unless this is tied to a federal mandate that everyone must get insurance. Otherwise, premiums soar as insurance costs increase without growth in the number of premium payers.

Despite some areas of agreement on a few narrow provisions, the summit failed to bridge the wide gap between the two parties. But there was no dispute over the huge number of uninsured Americans and the need to rein in costs.

The meeting was as good a display of bipartisan comity as can be expected in an era of political division. Yet it also served to show why reform can't wait.

The Democrats were wrong, too, in offering concessions to certain states as a way to buy senators' votes in certain states, including Florida. That's one area where Mr. Obama can show leadership and strip such costly concessions from the legislation.

Both sides should continue to seek common ground. But if gridlock prevails, Mr. Obama may have to forgo Republican votes and consider passage by the solid Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill. As he told Sen. John McCain on Thursday, ``The election is over.''