Bipartisanship appears to a dead issue so far as Republican voting for any effective health-care bill, and it's becoming increasingly apparent to just about everybody — except possibly President Obama. Republicans continue to say, no. And the cost of bipartisanship is perhaps more than Democrats can afford to pay.

Whatever bipartisanship could occur has already occurred when Republican ideas were incorporated in the proposed bill. Republican can decide whether they want to take credit for those entries or whether they will choose to let Democrats take the blame for them.

Republicans find comfort in the Congressional budget Office report suggesting that the proposed congressional plan would not reduce health-care costs. But if the plan insures everybody with jobs, without jobs and between jobs and provides high-quality health care for the same cost as would the present system, that's a bargain — almost like getting two for the price of one.

However, Democrats should not be attempting to get Republicans to support positions that would be political suicide for them back home, and they also should not allow Republicans to water down health-care reform to a plan that will threatened Democrats back home, plans which Republicans won't vote for anyway. The voters elected Democrats to fix health care in the United States with an American solution. They should pass reform that they believe will work and be willing to take the heat in 2010 or later if it does not. Tough times and issues require tough leadership.

Polls contribute more to the controversy about health care than they provide useful guidance. Consider the question: Is president Obama taking on too many problems at one time? On what basis would those polled give an answer, their own experience, their own abilities to deal with the problems?

CNN asked us to grade the performances of the president and his administration after 200 days, after having graded him after the first 100 days. The grades were down. But it's like grading an architect after he explains the project he plans to undertake in terms of demolitions and clean up, construction materials to be used, having a blueprint of the structure and picture of the building as it will appear when it is finished. It's easy give that phase high grades. But grading him after the old structure has been demolished and cleanup has begun, and comparing that with the finished product is not fair. It's also not fair to grade him poorly just because one dislikes the building.

Here are three polls I would like to see: A. What percent of those polled think they know how to develop an effective, affordable health-care plan (1) 80-100%, (2) 60-79%, (3) 40-59%, (4) 20-39%, (5) 0-19%. B. Compared to you, how much do you think others being polled actually know about fixing health care: (1) more than you, (2) less than you,, (3) about the same as you, (4) have no idea.

C. How would you rate your ability to develop an effective health-care plan? (1) Well prepared, (2) Prepared, (3) poorly prepared, (4) Unprepared. Voters more than politicians trust and rely on polls.

Republicans and even some Democrats claim they need to go back home to hear from the home folk about how they feel about the various ideas being floated about health-care reform. In the town meetings I have heard, the people back home provide neither ideas nor solutions. They ask questions. Republicans much too often deliberately give wrong answers to questions, while Democrats are becoming increasingly unable to answer questions at all. Still Republicans will return to Washington, claiming to have heard from constituents.

If the president is not convinced that public bipartisanship is all but dead, consider the number of Republican senators opposing Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Several Republican senators have said they will use the Obama model for determining whether to vote for Sotomayor.

Some say they don't think she could be a neutral judge, despite few, if any, Supreme Court nominee ever being nominated because he or she was perceived to be "neutral." A neutral nominee would be found voting as often with liberal as conservative justices on five to four decisions.

Some Republican claims they opposed Justice Sotomayor because she would be an 'activist" justice, and not guided by the law. Yet there is a health-care controversy, where Republicans argue that hospital and doctors should not be required to follow the law giving women the right to choose if the law is contrary to their beliefs. These senators are particular about justices following laws but apparently only laws with which they agree.

Others say she believes circuit court judges make laws. But they do when their decisions are sustained by the Supreme Court.

Republicans had no good reasons to vote against Justice Sotomayor. If bipartisanship could not happen here, it cannot happen.

I don't believe Obama sought the presidency just to be president but because he saw needs that only he would have the determination and ability to achieve. He has the ability and the determination but may be denied the opportunities. He was not elected king or dictator. He has to work with other people who are less committed to change, partly because they don't identify with those who would benefit from the changes.

Nevertheless, if Democrats fail to rally behind Obama to pass a Democratically dominated health-care bill, they very likely will make him the earliest lame duck president in history. If he cannot do health care, neither can he do education — which will be even harder — energy independence, and, eventually, Medicare and Social Security.

If not him, then who?

Ronald C. Spooner of Port Arthur is a retired educator. Contact him at rcspoon@earthlink.net.