There are many points in this post that I take issue with. For one, it is most certainly not true that Obama has refused to compromise. You and all other conservatives know that he has, in fact, added many of the provisions proposed by Coburn and the Senate Republican Healthcare policy machine. I also don't think it is fair to characterize Obama's debate with the Republicans as "tit-for-tat." The idea of the summit was to provide a forum to discuss policy issues between the parties, and the disagreements that took place were not "partisan barbs" but rather real philosophical differences. While I am sure "mischaracterizations" may have occurred, both parties were present, and could easily have taken issue with President Obama's words on the spot, which the congress members present did not seem shy to do. This claim about Obama's arrogance and snark is supported by some of his comments during the summit, but was by no means unequaled by the Republican response. Also, I would like to point out that reconciliation has most often been used by conservatives, so any touting of the U.S. Constitution and the rights of American people in that respect is largely nullified. And lastly, encouraging Americans to go to "emergency rooms" for care is completely the wrong attitude and forces hospitals all over the country to drive up costs, while doing absolutely nothing for prevention.

Mr. Limbaugh, this definition that you put forth on what is the "philosophy of the destroyers of Our Beloved Country" is exactly correct.

"To invoke my own anecdotal experience here, I have worked with people like Obama before, those who sanctimoniously demand collegiality and compromise while exhibiting no willingness to compromise themselves and then -- wholly blind to their own dogmatism -- castigate you for not "meeting them halfway" (meaning: wholly embracing their proposals)."

The enemies of Our Beloved Country have no intentions of honoring their "Oath of Office", they are liars and thieves, oath breakers. People may think that these "deceivers" are "Truthful", but it is only that they "deceive you to destroy our Beloved America."

May we have the "stamina and courage" to take back what is "rightfully ours", given to US by God, Founders, Veterans, and Patriots.

Battle Hymn of the Republic, "He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat, O, be swift my soul to answer Him, be jubilant my feet, for God is marching on."

For God & Country

Ruth Ann Wilson

Nick: 1)Reconciliation is to be used only for budgetary purposes. Period. 2 (and this is the biggie, the real important one)) A government take-over of health care is unconstitutional. Period. End of argument. This summit never should have happened, because a health care bill should not even be up for debate. There is nothing to debate: the constitution does not allow the government to take over 1/6 of the American economy. 3) I believe the President is a vain, shallow, narcissistic, socialist, elitist, pompous windbag who has absolutely no idea what being an American means. By the way, I didn't watch the summit, but did BO have his teleprompter?

Barack actually performed surprisingly well without his teleprompter, and I will agree that I have been dissatisfied with some of his speeches in the past. However, my main question for you Brian, is where exactly is this constitutional argument coming from? If you could refer me to a section of the constitution where it says that the government acting to protect its citizens from the careless profit schemes of giant corporations is unacceptable, then I would subscribe to your argument. However, this part of the constitution doesn't exist. And, as long as we are using beliefs as argument rather than fact, I believe that being an American is standing up to big corporations who are milking both American citizens and the government for every last penny they can get their hands on. The only way to remedy this, in my opinion, is to have an impartial and completely nonprofit organization compete in the system, or at the very least regulate it. And what better organization than the democratically elected United States government, that is supposed to represent the needs of people, and not corporations (though apparently they are now people too.)

"[C]areless profit schemes of giant corporations"??

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suppose the writer is referring to health insurance companies. I wonder then if he's aware that the average profit margin for health insurance companies is less than 5%? I do not believe it is fair to characterize that as "careless" or a "scheme."

In fact, in general tone and choice of language, I suspect the writer is trying to convey a class-warfare style of argument that presupposes profit is somehow wrong. That's a thoroughly Marxist view. I strongly doubt a case could be made that the Founders intended the Constitution to be used in support of Marxism.

As for the argument that an "impartial and completely nonprofit organization compete in the system," the very concept NEGATES competition. When a government entity can run up deficits without consequences, no private entity can hope to compete. So the whole argument is simply a slow-motion run at 100% Socialized medicine.

Hey, Nick, how about this: If feel that a coporation is milking you out of your hard earned money, purchase the service from someone else. That's how a free market economy works. The liberals want everybody to believe free market means corporations a free to rob you blind, but, in fact, it means *you* are free to purchase services from ANYONE you wish. It is incessant government regulation that hinders the free market. And while we're at it, the constitution does NOT give congress carte blanche to take over any part of the economy on the basis of "for the public good". THAT is a Marxist argument, and, although the left is loathe to admit it, socialism, communism, Marxism, and fascism have all been *proven* by the hand of history to be unviable. They simply *do not work*. They will never work. You can not make tweaks or adjustments to them to make them work. They are just not viable as a long term form of government. The reason our country is in its current condition is because there has been too much reliance on government over self. Far too many cries of "the government must DO something!" The best thing a government can do is stay out of everbody's way. I am not advocating anarchy by any means, but too much government is like too many cooks in the kitchen. Here's an example from my local community: A businessman wanted to open a Dunkin' Donuts, and had secured $2 million in financing to accomplish this feat of small business. By the time the city, county and state got their money, in the form of environmental impact fees, building permits, inspections, etc., etc., ad infinitum, it was going to cost this gentleman close to $10 million to open a donut shop. Needless to say, he went elsewhere. Not only did the government not get any of their fees, they lost out on potential sales tax revenue. Talk about stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime.