For those of you that didn't get in who were hoping to see impromptu debate spontaneously erupt throughout the venue and hear people treat Peters as a referee that called a penalty shot against the Detroit Red Wings, you should feel disappointed since there was plenty of such activity.  But for those of you who didn't get in that were actually seeking answers from Peters and where he stands on the various issues surrounding this debate, you didn't miss much.

Does Peters support HR 3200?

He hasn't decided yet.

Would he oppose the bill if it manifested itself to include public funding for abortion?

He never answered.

Would he demand the legislation include several measures on tort reform before giving his final sign off?

He wouldn't say.

Would he do everything in his power to ensure his constituents would have at least ten days to review the legislation before the final vote took place?

No answer given.

Was he in favor of the public option?

He never directly said so.

It was this type of political dodge ball that frustrated me even more after I was made to sit through 30 minutes of stall tactics that opened up the meeting.  This included a 15-minute slide show presentation from Peters himself that immediately gave me flashbacks to my days at Michigan State attending long and seemingly pointless lectures.  But in Peters' case it truly was pointless as he admitted most of what WAS on his presentation WAS NOT included in HR 3200, begging the question: why even bring it up?

But Peters did finally get to talking to members of the audience, which I will legitimately give him credit for.  Unlike many of his Democratic colleagues who have opted to hide under the technological security blanket that is the "tele-town hall", Peters was at least showing he was willing to take a few punches.  But once the discussion started, my admiration for him immediately waned.

All and all Peters took comments and questions from 28 audience members, some of whom seemed to exist only to fluff his pillow:

"I want to commend you for holding this forum and think you're doing a great job!"

"I support this bill and I support you in all of your efforts, thank you!"

"We need health care reform now!"

"What can Congress do to stop the Republican lies?"

"Do you believe the media is serving us well [in their coverage of these events]?

I counted ten members in all that lobbed softballs, which Peters predictably breezed through, but it wasn't all milk and cookies for him.  Several audience members grilled Peters on the fact that HR 3200 does not address tort reform.  Peters answered them by explaining that in Michigan and Texas, where tort reform has been most stringent, health care costs have not been reduced.  Peters did not provide a citation to justify this remark.

More people wanted to know whether or not the government was setting itself up to eventually have to ration health care to Americans if HR 3200 became law.  Peters rambled on about the importance of primary care physicians, never giving the actual question its due.

And still others wanted to know simply how the federal government was expecting to pay for HR 3200 if it became law.  Peters never offered any specifics, but said that he favored a "deficit neutral" health care reform package.

At one point Peters even admitted that he had no idea what the Senate's version of health care reform looked or like, or what was in it...Yikes!

So on it went like this, for two hours each question and answer being interrupted by proponents and opponents of the bill alike.  I regretfully stayed for the entire circus as I continuously eyed the clock and fought my near uncontrollable craving for Taco Bell.

But what I honestly did take out of the meeting was the fact that there appears to be two types of Democrats in Washington who are trying to ram this down our throats.  The first kind are those with a calculated agenda, who know creating the "public option" will eventually lead to a single-payer health care system.  The second is a group who are simply too dense to understand the true intentions of the first group and actually, but foolishly, believe this whole charade is about health care reform.  I file Peters in this folder.

When asked during the town hall to explain the "public option" Peters did so.  He first explained that the "public option" would be run by the federal government, just like Medicare.

So why do we need it in addition to Medicare?

He then went on to explain that the public option would operate exactly like a private insurance company in that it would be bound by the same rules and regulations.  In addition, the "public option" would be financed by premiums just like private insurers.

So why do we need it in addition to private insurers?

The answer is quite simple: because it lets government's big foot in to the door of the health care industry.  Indeed, the only difference between the "public option" and private insurers is one that Peters didn't point out and is the most obvious.  The "public option" can never go out of business since it is financed with our taxes and fresh dollar bills rolling hot off the Treasury's printing press.  Once mandated in the law, the federal government will be duty bound to ensure it does not fail.  This is significant because it gives the "public option" a tremendous competitive advantage over private insurers.

Since the "public option" does not have to concern itself with being viable in the free market, it will be able to offer comparative or greater health care benefits than private insurers could ever hope to.  Driven by market forces, consumers will kick their private insurers to the curb and take the "public option".

Once this happens, the private insurance companies will have two choices, both of which lead to certain doom: 1.) raise the premiums on the unlucky souls who are trying to stick it out with their coverage, or 2.) fold up the tent.  In the long run the "public option" DESTROYS market place competition, it does not stimulate it as Obama and Democrats claim.

It's only a matter of time before we're all on the "public option" and that is when the money crunch will happen, leaving the government no choice but to ration health care because they simply won't be able to print enough dollars to keep up with the demand for it (see: Cash-for-Clunkers; Social Security).

Does this sound like a better way to do things to you?

This is all a very practical, linear, and quite frankly simple concept to understand.  Yet the distinguished Congressman from the 9th district still can't seem to wrap his arms around it.  Peters says that he is still thinking about supporting HR 3200.

Let's hope he doesn't forget the "thinking" part.