There's no question that Washington's health care summit today is partly for show, a made-for-TV event. Democrats and Republicans alike will use the event to talk to the cameras, not to each other.

But that doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't hope that they could come together around at least some common ideas. That includes Republicans showing up as more than the Party of No.

President Barack Obama, after months of debate in Congress, weighed in with his own ideas Monday. He's right in some critical areas, but he also misses the mark in ways that both parties should reject.

The president is correct in trying to expand coverage to 30 million more Americans. More families need insurance so they don't end up in emergency rooms. And the president would help some families by offering them federal subsidies to purchase plans.

He's right to insist that insurers not discriminate against customers with pre-existing health conditions. Health premiums may rise, but Americans shouldn't be denied coverage because they suffer from diabetes or an ailing heart.

He's smart not to include a "public option" as a way to compete with private insurers. It's hard to see how America could afford a public health option that could end up covering millions of Americans. As it is, we can barely afford Medicare.

He's backed way off the Senate proposal to tax high-end health plans. In a bow to unions that have negotiated costly plans for their workers, the president would not start taxing insurers for the expansive health plans they offer until 2018. By waiting so long to levy the tax, the president would sharply weaken Congress' already limited efforts to control medical expenses.

He would tax far fewer plans than the Senate envisioned. The president would tax plans valued at more than $27,000 for a family of four, while the Senate plan would tax plans starting at $23,000. (The House doesn't tax any plans.) How is exempting more families going to help control costs?

He wants Washington to regulate health insurance premiums. That function – in effect, federal price controls – is best left to states.

He breaks no new ground in paying doctors and hospitals for how well they treat patients. Medicare now reimburses providers for the volume of services they deliver. Many an expert says we could cut costs by paying them for the quality of their care instead. The president only talks about setting up a task force to explore this idea.

We give the president credit for offering specific ideas, even if they come pretty late in the game. We expect Republicans to be equally forthcoming when they get their long-demanded face time. And bear with us if this sounds naive, but both parties owe it to Americans to show up with a willingness to compromise. Otherwise, we're only going to get a show when what we need is a broadly supported plan that accomplishes some worthy goals.