It is the nature of the United States Congress, composed of 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 senators, that it is hard to figure how, first, what makes it tick, and, second, how to make the body function in the interests of the people of the country.

At the moment, for reasons that include the members' responsiveness to money, the illusive concept of "party" and absurd self-imposed rules which the members attempt to manipulate or cite to justify their own behavior, the Congress is not meeting the increasingly grave needs of the American people.

Take the question of health care legislation, without regard to what one believes should be done ...

There are two hard facts about American health care that clearly indicate a need for change. The first is that it is costing America -- its employers, its people, its government -- an increasing and dangerous amount, 17.3 percent of the entire economy last year, up from 16.2 percent in 2008. One of the places where the money is going was illustrated last week when it was reported that the country's five largest health insurance providers' profits in 2009 were up 56 percent over 2008. Whether you think health insurance companies should rake in that much or not, the fact remains that their profits constitute a heavy and growing burden on the American economy, on the American people.

The second fact that screams for action is that some 47 million Americans, many of them children, do not have health insurance coverage. America simply cannot call itself a civilized, developed country and have that remain true.

Now, in the face of those two facts alone, the pigsty that congressional "consideration" of health care reform has become is simply disgusting. Lobbyists for various parties in the health care delivery process have weighed in big time with big money. Members of Congress have pocketed their campaign contributions, also known as bribes, with smiles on their meaty faces, and they have tied the reform process in knots that resemble the intertwined intestines of a four-footed mammal.

One form that the wrangling has taken, with respect to health care legislation but in other areas as well, is that we, the public, are supposed to see what they are doing, or not doing, as some kind of normal competition between the two political parties for power.

That is, of course, ridiculous. A person who has a sick child but no health insurance couldn't care less whether his congressman or senator is a Democrat or a Republican or, even less, which party appears to control one or both houses of Congress.

One absurdity is the idea of a majority meaning 60 rather than 51 votes in the Senate because some jackass in the body might filibuster to get his way. I would say, let any member or party that wants to do that, do it. Let him stand up and talk all night for as many days as are required before, either out of looking foolish or collapsing from fatigue, he gives it up. Or use congressional procedures to get around the tactic. They exist.

Why should any normal American citizen see anything holy about the filibuster? The idea that somehow our legislature reaches a better consensus by letting such archaic practices prevail in 2010 is clearly contradicted by the outcome -- paralysis in lawmaking.

The majority needed to pass a law in the House or Senate should always be 50 percent plus one, whatever the current composition of either house, whether that approach favors the Democrats now, or the Republicans later. This country in 2010 cannot function with a legislature that runs according to self-imposed, obsolete rules.

Now, what are Americans supposed to do about, first, the prevalence of special interest money in getting members of Congress to act or vote one way or another? It is a hard habit to kick because, in part, we do it to ourselves. The candidates pay for television time to broadcast ads that are supposed to influence voters. That television time costs a lot. It, apparently, in some cases, works, thus defying the old adage that one can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Here is Congressman "X" giving away our money to us. We should vote for him so he can continue to do that. Crazy.

Fortunately, God made the channel clicker to deal with just this exigency. It is necessary to be quick with the remote in order to identify them early and distinguish them from useful information, such as, for example, that the candidate is retiring or is dropping out of the race.

The argument is, basically, that the best thing to do at this point is get rid of all the incumbents. People are going to say, of course, "My representative is OK. He isn't crooked or morally degenerate like the rest of them."

Well, maybe. But the ones who are good are just as guilty as those who are not, in that they enable the dodgy ones to play the games that paralyze our legislature. It isn't just an existential pretense that those who do not act are just as guilty as those who do. We have our ears cocked for members who say, "This can't go on like this," but then we also want to see what they do about it.

The current liberal whine is that, since the Democrats have majorities in both houses now, turning the rascals out universally would benefit the Republicans. And that is bad, they say, eying some of the current stars of the GOP.

Another, viable version of turning out the incumbents would be that both parties should nominate new people, not the incumbents. Let the voters choose between a fresh Democrat and a fresh Republican. (I would argue for electing independents if Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut didn't call himself one.)

Looking for more from the Post-Gazette? Join PG+, our members-only web site. You'll get exclusive sports content, opinion, financial information, discounts from retailers and restaurants, and more. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.