If you can look at the current legislation and think that there was any consideration of anything bipartisan in its creation, then you really haven't paid attention. From soup to nuts this bill has been nothing other than a gigantic, Democrat-only proposition that was only watered down enough to actually get enough Democrats behind it to pass it, since in the House, despite having an 85 seat advantage, they only managed to pass it by what, 5 votes?
The legislation was proposed by the Democrats and the White House. I'm certainly not refuting that. But every single step of the way they've asked (pointlessly in my opinion) for Republican debate, input and support. This summit is just yet another example of that. Some Democrats still want the Republicans to play a meaningful part in the debate over this legislation ... instead of just saying it's socialist, will kill our old people, and whatever else they can dream up. I can respect that attempt at bipartisanship even if (at this point) I wholly disagree with it. Having a real fiscal conservative take a good look at legislation like this, and offering an opinion that they didn't catch on a Glenn Beck highlight reel, would be a good thing.
As for the House vote, again I maintain that many representatives (who are generally more attuned to the desires of their constituencies than senators) voted it down because it was
too conservative. Many in the House supported the public option, considering it's what the American people asked for; an alternative to getting raped by insurance companies. When the Senate shot that down many Reps were left in an awkward position. In my opinion that's indicative of a larger structural failure of our bicameral legislature (that the upper house has more power than the lower), but that's something for another thread.
Also, the only reason this legislation was watered down in the first place was to get 60 votes. The Democrats
don't actually need 60 votes, it's just become this arbitrary new majority marker since they're ... idiots. They can pass all of this through reconciliation (that's the sneaky back door method Republicans have been complaining about ... the same one they're so familiar with). The simple fact that the Democrats tried to get to 60 votes to beat the filibuster is enough evidence that they attempted bipartisanship. At least more so than the Republicans.
Another telling indicator of the Republicans failure is the simple fact that they proposed no real alternative than the status quo. They've had a few little ideas. The predominate one being that we begin this year long debate all over again (which I think would be wholly unacceptable to the public). I suppose Rep. Ryan did create a very interesting shadow budget, one which would privatize social security and medicare ... and still leave us in debt ... 50 years from now. The Republicans have offered no alternative. They've only said "no, no, no, no, no." That's not bipartisanship. That's not even pretending to be bipartisan. That's obstruction, plain and simple, and it's the only agenda they've got. They've stated as much.
And if you are arguing that government programs are more efficient... when was the last time YOU went to a DMV office?
You see things too black and white Steve. Simply put, healthcare and the DMV aren't even in the same ballpark. There are some programs that are better administered privately (the DMV) and some programs that, at least in part, are bettered administered publicly (healthcare). Missouri has privatized DMV offices. They are
fantastic. There can be a line to the door and you'll be out of there in well under an hour. No fuss, no problems, buy your tags for a couple years out. Kansas is the total opposite. Publicly run, there can be five people in there with ten receptionists and you'll still wait half an hour ... then have to drive across town so the Highway Patrol can fill out a form that says your VIN is correct. Awful system.
But comparing healthcare and the DMV is apples to oranges. There's plenty of proof that a privately run DMV is better. There's plenty of proof that a public/private hybrid system is better for healthcare. But I fear that you're unwilling to consider anything that's not wholly black or white (private or public) when in reality there are systems that operate in that grey area. Systems that operate much more efficiently than our own, even with substantial government involvement.