As our Congressmen continued to debate this legislative monstrosity with the President at the Blair House today I am given to observe the following based upon those moments that I was able to watch and those arguments I heard on news and commentary programs later in the day:

1.        Senator McConnell indicated that to that specific point in the discussion, republicans had been able to speak 24 minutes as compared to 50 minutes for democrats.  He suggested more balance.  President Obama intoned that he was largely responsible for the difference and he was entitled because he is President.  Was there any better indication that today’s objective was for the President to have an opportunity to talk to instead of negotiate with Republicans than this statement? 

2.       I question whether anything drew my frustration more than a discussion I heard between Neil Cavuto and persons I was unable to identify that compared the healthcare negotiation to the negotiations between baseball management and a star player.  In my opinion nothing could be further from the truth.  One has to assume that in a negotiation between player and management that at the heart of the negotiation is the desire for this all star to play ball the coming year.  This premise is not accurate as it relates to the healthcare bill.  I would prefer nothing at all to a bill that promises to destroy the best healthcare system in the world.  At the heart of this debate is not that we want to cut any deal that would produce a bill.  At the heart of this debate is a philosophy that says this is within the province of the federal government and the core belief of many of us that constitutionally, it is not. 

3.       Much is being said of the problem that exists for people with pre-existing conditions.  The concept that insurers should not exclude people with pre-existing conditions sounds great if you say it fast but when you look at it from the perspective of the insurance company you may recognize the futility of such a possibility.  The time to purchase insurance is before you have any conditions that you want to insure against.  To allow pre-existing conditions on a personal policy is to go to the insurance company and ask that they pay your multi-thousand dollar bills for the same affordable premium of the standard policy holder.  What sense could that possibly make?  Actuaries base rate calculations on their population and the statistical likelihood that something will occur.  How could they possibly project the potential for persons who yesterday had no insurance but today found themselves to be seriously ill who then approach the insurance company to request the company spend its reserves on their illness immediately destroying the previous pricing models?  I agree that pre-existing conditions should be a part of any employer’s group policy because employers should not have the right to require information about your health risks when making a decision to hire.  But for individual policies, pre-existing conditions should not be included.  State governments and charities should determine a way to help these people, not insure them.  The federal government should not force private insurers to cover pre-existing conditions and include them in the risk pools of other persons who truly are seeking insurance based upon standard risks.  If they do, insurance will become significantly more expensive as insurers are forced to cover all possibilities in their pricing models. 

4.       Why do so many pretend to speak for the American people?  This is from both sides of the aisle but at least I believe the Republicans listened to the American people last summer when they held multiple Town Hall Meetings and I among others gathered to tell my Congressman that I wanted absolutely nothing to do with this idea.  Many Democrats like Arlen Specter and Claire McCaskill held Town Hall Meetings and their constituents were vocal.  Stay away from my relationship with my health care provider.  Other Democrats hid from their constituents and/or held meetings with only 24 hour notice that were by invitation only in not so populated areas of their states.  Yet these people are ignoring the desires of their constituents and voted in favor of the present bill anyway.  Now they pretend to tell us that they are speaking on behalf of a majority of the American people.  The one thing of which I am certain, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama are not relating to the desires of the American people.  As such it would be my wish that they would stop telling us the American people want what they are proposing.  I don’t buy it.   

5.       Reconciliation is a Senate Rule that suspends another Senate Rule calling for a 60% cloture vote to end debate.  There is plenty of evidence that Barack Obama himself as well as Harry Reid, Charles Schumer spoke vociferously against Reconciliation when the Bush Administration had judicial nominees in front of the Senate.  In this instance I would contend that the Senate had no right to create a Senate Rule to require a super majority over a Constitutional duty to provide Advice and Consent over Presidential nominees.  In that instance John McCain formed his clan of 14 Senators who stopped a Constitutional showdown between the parties over this issue and preserved the right of the Senate to enforce its own rules.  Reconciliation was intended only to allow differences between House and Senate versions of a bill to be adjusted by a simple majority when policies were in conformity but the two versions of the legislation required compromise regarding rates or actual budget amounts.  It was not intended to be used for new social legislation and certainly not for social legislation that holds 1/6 of the nation’s economy in jeopardy. 

6.       Bill O’Reilly on “The Factor” identified Obama as having done well as a “moderator” today.  I’m sorry but I have to dispute this.  Obama did not take a neutral position that would allow Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al to carry their own ball and do battle with the Republicans.  He spoke on their behalf and as such I would not call him an effective moderator at all.  John McCain requested that the President eliminate all the special deals that infamously include the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Exemption and the exclusion from the Cadillac tax that will be enjoyed by labor unions that others will have to pay.  The President turned a deaf ear and asked that McCain and others not regurgitate “talking points” in order for the discussion to be productive.  President Obama, this was not a talking point.  This was a reasonable request that should have immediately been responded to in the affirmative and would have been if you truly were an independent “moderator.” 

7.       Lamar Alexander confronted Obama on his interpretation of the results of a Congressional Budget Office review that indicated or didn’t indicate that premiums would rise as a result of this plan.  Once again Obama did not act as a moderator.  He attempted to stifle the discussion and comments by Senator Alexander by calling them “talking points” and asking him to avoid such comments.  I trust Lamar Alexander and his truthfulness far more than I trust President Obama.  Joe Wilson was correct and Obama has proven this multiple times.  He lies. 

8.       Also on “The O’Reilly Factor” was the comment that suggested Obama is more damaged with no bill than with a bad bill.  I could not disagree more.  I contend the president is damaged either way but in the eyes of different people.  If he gets no bill, the 20% of the country that is hard left will be angry with the President.  If he gets the bill currently being debated he risks the ire of at least 65% of the nation who had this imposed upon them through chicanery and over their dead bodies.  Many Congressmen, Senators and the President himself should expect to lose their seats if they pass this bill, especially through the Reconciliation process.  We have been vocal.  They should understand, we do not want this bill to pass.    

9.       I also grew tired of the emotional stories presented in the place of what should be logical and reasonable debate.  One Congresswoman told a story of a woman who was forced to use her dead sister’s dentures because she could not afford dentures of her own.  She had no insurance.  This is not the kind of argument that should sway anybody to vote for legislation that promises to decimate what is now the best healthcare system in the world.  It is merely intended to bring a tear to your eye but for a problem that is better resolved by charities, family or friends. 

10.   Again, from “The O’Reilly Factor” was the comment that the American people don’t understand the bill because it is too complex. Thank you Laura Ingraham for telling Bill and his audience that the problem is that we understand the bill all too well.  We understand the costs associated with the bill, we understand the impact this bill will have on employer taxes, employment, individual taxes and the costs of all products taken to market.  We understand the loss of liberty associated with the program as to our ability to continue our relationships over the long term with our current providers.  We understand the direction this will take us toward the leftist concept of a single payer provider.  Most of all, we understand that the President and the Congress are exempted from the provisions of this bill and this is more than simply unjust, it is unconscionable.