Lamar Alexander, the point man for party of No at health-care reform summit, a smooth talking, smiling  Tennessee snake oil salesman-- don't buy his medicine buy my poison Lamar -- souped up his twisted facts with falsehoods as far as the feathers fly,  and did a great job confusing rubes into believing  that the Party of No has their best interest in mind, and not that of the big money givers from the health care private industry lobby.

 
Snake oily Lamar said  reconciliation is not used on big issues. At the televised summit, Oily Lamar said --

" 'You can say that this process has been used before, and that would be right. But it's never been used for anything like this.' It took the Washington Post's Ezra Klein only a few minutes to shine a light on the sophistry of Alexander's claim:  Lamar Alexander said that reconciliation has never been used for anything as big as health-care reform. Health-care reform has a 10-year cost of about $950 billion. The Bush tax cuts, which passed through reconciliation, had a 10-year cost of about $1.8 trillion. Lamar Alexander voted for them." (http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/2010/02/lamar_takes_lead_gop_role_a...)

The false face, fool-you-if-he-can, oily Lamar, voted for Dubya Bush's tax cuts for the rich.  Another law passed through reconciliation.

Lamar voted for the Bush 2004 election year prescription  drug give-away to the drug companies Medicare trustees estimate the 10-year cost of Medicare part D as high as $1.2 trillion. Old Lamar now is against anything that would cut the gravy to the drug companies. He is against a health reform bill that would cut federal spending!

Oily Lamar was caught talking with a twisted tongue on the subject of premiums.

    "President Obama told Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee that he was misrepresenting the facts on what policies would cost under his plan. -- 'Let me respond to what you just said, Lamar, because it’s not factually accurate,' Obama said. 'The cost for families for the same type of coverage as they’re currently receiving would go down 14 to 20 percent'.” --What the Congressional Budget Office said was that premiums may well go up because people will buy greater coverage than they had previously, but for the exact same coverage, premiums go down."
(http://www.alan.com/2010/02/25/barack-obama-vs-lamar-alexander-on-the-co...)

The bottom line is that Lamar doesn't want to see any health reform package pass the Congress that won't benefit his health industry campaign contributors.