By: John ShafferWednesday March 3, 2010 President Obama convoked the Health Care Summit in order to find a way to pass his bill. The Congressional Democrat leaders hoped to protect themselves from the electoral consequences of passing the bill. The Republicans hoped to find a way to prevent the passage of the bill. All may have succeeded, in a way - but in spite of heavy public opposition to his bill, the President continues to press onward, so far refusing to drop anything from it.

The President has accepted some Republican ideas, (although in a way that makes them look as if they were his ideas and in the bill all along), and thinks that by contemplating adding some form of Health Savings Accounts and malpractice insurance reform to his bill, it will be enough to attract Republican votes. Of course, the issues raised by the Republicans were not intended as negotiating points. The Republicans hoped that the parties could come together and pass a bill that covered those items on which everyone agreed. The President saw their ideas as goodies that could be added to the Christmas tree, thinking, "Put portability and mild tort reform in the bill and the GOP will come over to my side." And a few years ago, it might have worked, but the days are long gone when legislators would support a big bill they don't like in order to win a small victory on a side issue. As the President's Press Secretary said, if Republicans want to vote against their own ideas, that's their business. And unless the President and the Democrat leaders are willing to give up some of the parts of their 2,400 page measure, the Republicans almost certainly will vote against it no matter how many of their ideas are tacked on.

The Republicans believe the President's bill is too expensive, too intrusive and will not control costs and their opinion will not change just because the ideas that the President dismissed as Republican talking points at the summit suddenly have been transformed into parts of his bill.

The Republicans objected to the "Cornhusker Kickback" in the President's bill (whereby Nebraska was spared 100% of the costs of Medicaid expansion) because it was unfair and expensive. The President's response? Stop the "Kickback" - but not by terminating it but by applying it to every state. Remember that keeping the cost of the healthcare bill under $900 billion was a criterion of any bill that the President would sign. That number was reached in the original bill only by winks, nods, subterfuge and misestimation; but if we fold in the costs of Medicaid expansion for all fifty states, that $900 billion figure is blown out of the water.

The Republicans are criticized as "the party of no" at the same time the President complains that a huge deficit was left on his desk when he took office. Well, the reason that we have that deficit problem is because Congressmen, Senators and Presidents (including the incumbent) did not say "no." This issue was displayed this week in the debate over extending unemployment insurance. One Senator, Republican Jim Bunning from Kentucky, stopped the measure - how? - because he said no. The extension did not contain means to pay for it. He was blasted by the Democrats, excoriated by the left, scolded by some of his fellow Republicans, but the Senator held his ground and made his point: It is very easy to spend money, to have compassion using taxpayer funds; it is not so easy to trim spending to make such compassion affordable. The reluctance or inability to set priorities, to spend money wisely or well, are hallmarks of Congress.

The 2,400 page healthcare bill is a clear example of this. One of the most stunning moments of last week's summit came when the President scolded Republican Congressman Eric Cantor for bringing a copy of the healthcare bill. The President dismissed this as a gimmick. Congressman Cantor probably wanted to say, "It was bad enough that you didn't want anyone to read this bill before it was passed, now you don't even want the public to see how big it is."

We will repeat: the best healthcare bill for America in 2010 would be one consisting solely of those points that the Democrats and Republicans agree on. This will leave out many of the Republicans' ideas, and many of the Democrats' ideas, but it would provide a bipartisan bill, inexpensive and effective. Whether the bill be good, bad or indifferent, we do not have the means to pay for the President's bill.

What's been said: