President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress and the nation on Wednesday night in an attempt to resuscitate his ailing efforts at government-centric health care "reform".  Predictably, he didn't do what he should've done — that is, call for a reboot on the entire issue, substituting free market competition for government command and control.  He did, however, employ one of his usual rhetorical devices:  he stated that the "time for bickering is over" and that he will no longer "waste time with those who have made the calculation that it is better politics to kill this plan than to improve it."  In short, he basically said to Congress and the American people:  shut up and do what I want.

Sorry, Mr. President, but that's not how it works in America.  Debate and dissent is part of politics.  Our freedoms to petition our government, to speak out, and to band together are Constitutionally-protected, not subject to the whimsy of our politicians.  Whether the President is Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, free market or statist, he (or she) has no say on when the "season of action" has begun.  When you're attempting to radically remake something that is a significant part of the economy and an important part of the personal lives of individuals and families, you can't expect people just to roll over and take it.

The President should also be reminded that Congress itself is a co-equal branch of government.  Yes, the President has the "bully pulpit" and a huge advantage in terms of moving the agenda, but still yet the President has no formal authority over our national legislature — it isn't his role to decide when Congress schedules or ends debate, when it takes up or sets aside various pieces of legislation.

It would appear that the President should be mindful that the Republicans aren't his only problem; according to a whip count report posted on the Drudge Report, Democrats in the House are split over the bill:  44 Democrats are opposed to a plan that includes a government-run insurance plan (the so-called "public option"), but 57 Democrats have registered their opposition to any "reform" that doesn't include the government-run program.  When there is this much of a chasm within the majority party, not to mention opposition party opinion, does it really make sense to call for an end to debate (or, as the President prefers, "bickering")?

Interestingly enough, as the statist left continues to call for the "public option", they continue to compare it to Medicare, extolling the virtues of what is certainly a popular government program, but one that falls decidedly short of the pretty picture they paint of its so-called success.  Those who consider Medicare a sound, efficient, effective method of allocating health care resources and delivering services to consumers would be well-served to read the official 2009 Annual Report by the Medicare Board of Trustees.  The summary of this report contains admissions about the program's health that should give pause to those wishing to expand government control over health care.  Some excerpts [emphases added]:

"The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains challenging. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters....  Medicare's financial status is much worse [than Social Security's]. As was true in 2008, Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. ...  Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2017...  In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time. ...

The drawdown of Social Security and HI Trust Fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget.  For the third consecutive year, a "Medicare funding warning" is being triggered, signaling that non-dedicated sources of revenues—primarily general revenues—will soon account for more than 45 percent of Medicare's outlays. A Presidential proposal will be needed in response to the latest warning.

The financial challenges facing Social Security and especially Medicare need to be addressed soon. ...

The projected exhaustion of the HI Trust Fund within the next eight years is an urgent concern. Congressional action will be necessary to ensure uninterrupted provision of HI services to beneficiaries. Correcting the financial imbalance for the HI Trust Fund—even in the short range alone—will require substantial changes to program income and/or expenditures.

So the Medicare system is in dire shape, is going bankrupt, and requires urgent action.  And this program is being held up as a model for the improvement that government action would provide to our health care system?  Meanwhile, other countries' health care systems that feature government control and are held up as shining examples by advocates of greater government intrusion, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and France, are all facing budget cuts, shortages, and, of course, rationing — the hallmarks of centralized, planned economies.

So regardless of the President's wishes and proclamations, I'm going to continue to "bicker" and attempt to "kill" the President's plan.  The President may believe this to be a waste of his time, but I can't think of many more valuable ways to spend mine.