On the other hand, I dissent on the means by which we correct this corrupted system. Compromise was one of the principles on which this nation was built and much of the success our country has enjoyed is due to compromised made by those who first wrote our laws. Compromises, which allow the benefits of two divergent ideas to both be implied, are one of the distinguish characteristics between representative government and single party or majority rule. If a majority dictates to a minority, then we are taking a moral step backwards, regardless of any civil, social, or political advance we may make in the process.

On the contrary, I suggest we ratify a constitutional amendment, which, without modifying the quanity or quality of power awards to Congress, alters the assembly in a way which facilitates a progressive and efficient legislative system.

Just food for thought.

Since the end product of the legislative process is always a compromise, the President could operate on the theory that if he articulates the core principles of what he's looking for at the start, he can share authorship and ownership of the resulting product and take a role in shaping it while it's still being baked, and can sign it so long as his core principles (the non-negotiable elements) are maintained. If he can't shepherd a bill through in this way, he's not a good enough politician, which modern Presidents must be if they want to be successful.

The more important of my conditions is actually the first. Improving access to quality medical care in this country is a huge priority, perhaps even the most important priority, for Mr. Obama, but it is not the only one. If his team burns bridges to the other party and spurns members of his own to get his healthcare bill passed, it's going to be much harder for him to tackle some of the other big issues he'd like to take up– education, entitlement reform, environmental policy, and the like.

Will the outcome be what President Obama envisioned? No. Will it be what you or I would put together if we were tasked with building a reform package? No. But if the compromise gets passed–ugly as it may be– as long as it's a step in the right direction, it's a step farther than Obama's Democratic predecessor managed to travel.

One last thought–The approval of the best and the brightest stopped mattering in the governing process before the two of us were born, and I don't see it coming back into fashion for a long, long time, if ever.

I would like to see universal health care. However, since it is difficult to know if such a bill would pass Congress, does compromise pay if it winds up with many more people being able to have improved health care, versus the possibility that no bill would come to fruition?