That is what elections are for

I caught a little bit of the health-care summit this past week.

I must admit I did not have the full seven hours to devote to watching this on television or the Internet. I do commend the president of the United States for sitting in a room with members of Congress for seven hours. The hot air had to be stifling. For that matter, I commend the members of Congress who sat in the same room with the President (and Vice President Biden) for seven hours.

There are couple of suggestions I might make to liven up the program next time he decides to do this: First, how about Ryan Seacrest reading off the results of a nationwide vote about every hour or so and one member of Congress or the Administration getting kicked out of the room? Second, perhaps we could have Donald Trump and come in and fire one of the participants every hour or so. I do believe one of these might make for a little more compelling television.

The president said one thing that I do agree with: "that's what elections are for". I do not understand the Republican strategy of attempting to filibuster or derail the health-care bill. The president and the Democrats won the 2008 election. They have large majorities in both houses. This is their signature initiative. I agree with many of the Republicans' reservations and objections to the health-care plan but, the Democrats did win the last election. So I say to the Republicans: let them pass it and, more importantly, let them defend it.

There seems to be some fear amongst Republicans that the creation of this large entitlement program might ultimately be something that the American public likes. Let's face it, although many Americans profess to be fiscal conservatives, many Americans like their government services. We just don't like paying for government services for other states, cities or voters.

There is probably a legitimate fear amongst Republicans that, once the health-care plan gets embedded in the American way of life, the public will grow to like the benefits they receive and a Republican president and Republican Congress will not be able to undo it in the future. Let's face it, Ronald Reagan vowed to abolish the Department of Education and it is still around, bigger and more expensivethan ever. George W. Bush in eight years did little to reduce the size and cost of government.

If the American people finally like this large new entitlement program that is their prerogative. Again, as the president said that is what elections are for.

If however the American public finds come as I believe they will, that they are spending much more on health insurance and receiving much less, there will be a price to pay. The Democrats, having passed this on a strict party line vote will be the ones to pay the price. The Republicans must avoid the temptation to take a paternalistic attitude and try to "protect" the American people from themselves. If ultimately the American people do not like Obama care, President Obama and his party will pay the polls in 2010 and 2012.

So what should the Republicans do? I say participate vigorously in the debate. Set forth the reasons you object to the bill as proposed. Put forth your alternatives to Obama care. Then, the Congress vote and if it passes but the president signed. We had an election in 2008 he won.

The Democrats are going to try to pass health care in the US Senate through a process known as reconciliation. Honestly I believe the vast majority of the American people, including this writer, do not understand the reconciliation is, or if we do we think it is something that Charlie Sheen and his wife are doing. Therefore, I'm not sure that Republican objection to reconciliation is an effective argument that is going to resonate with the American people. Again, the Republicans should focus on their plan and the reasons they don't support Obama care, then let Congress vote, and let the President sign it.

And, as the president said, that's what elections are for. Maybe we can get Ryan Seacrest to read the results in November 2010.