Obama the Uniter-in-chief
I wanted to write a reflective piece on Obama’s first year, but glancing at the blogosphere this has already been done – to death (How many “What does Massachusetts mean for Obama” articles can you write?).
But then I came across this article from the UK Guardian – “Fox most trusted news channel in US, poll shows”. Fox News has a higher approval rating than Obama. What does this say about his first year in office?
My own personal reflections is that Obama is wasting a massive opportunity to finally unite America – a country which has been physiologically abused by fear and shame for so long (Slavery, Watergate, Vietnam and 9/11), elements he could tackle once and for all by taking one symbolic issue, Health Care, and making a profound and meaningful statement – Every American Citizen, poor, rich, black, white (and in between), tall short, male, female, gay or straight is entitled to Healthcare – All in the hopes of finally uniting the worlds cultural experiement.
Now this would have taken cajones and he would have spent the majority of his political capital but he’d still be in the same position he is standing in today, but instead of giving a speech about how he takes responsibility for not bringing about a bigger change, he would have been explaining to the American people why universal Healthcare is so important. More important than partisanship, certainly more important than money.
Admittedly all of this self righteous talk comes from a British citizen, but as a people we are very much united on 90 – 95% (heck id even go as far to say 99%) of important issues which Americans are divided on today. If a political party was to run in Britain’s General Elections on an anti-NHS, pro-life (against a woman’s right to choose) and pro-guns agenda, they simply wouldn’t get any seats in parliament. Now not to say that any of the aforementioned are the right policies – but they are policies which the majority of the British people agree.
I feel Obama’s understands that he has to be a transformational president, a “Uniter-in-chief” if you will – but I feel he has to start being more forceful in selling his agenda, standing up for what he believes in and start making the hard decisions on where he feels America should go next – How America should progress – How America should heal before this opportunity is lost for good.
12 Responses to “Obama the Uniter-in-chief”
“But then I came across this article from the UK Guardian – “Fox most trusted news channel in US, poll shows”. Fox News has a higher approval rating than Obama”
******
Gotta wonder how “free” the press is in the UK under Blair's boys and girls. Say, isn't he the same guy who might come up against war crime charges a la 'weapons of mass destruction” in his pact with Bushco?
And Fox IS the mouthpiece of the protectors of the GOP agenda.
Once again we have the equivalent of the “poll” results “90% of [tavern patron] citizens think the drinking age should be lowered.”
I'm a supporter of universal healthcare, but we don't have the money till the economy and more importantly the federal budget, gets under control. There is no feasible way to make it happen until then, there is simply not the money or the know how to manage what resources we have for that. Democrats were foolish to even try to make it happen with a trillion dollar deficit. Its like trying to finish your cross country road trip when the tires all blew out as soon as you pulled out of the driveway. That grinding noise you hear? That means pull over and fix the immediate problem before you continue on your way.
Since Universal healthcare massively reduces cost both for individuals and government, we should enact it as soon as possible. As for an “opportunity to compromise” with the republicans; Forget it. They don't compromise they obstruct.
Exaclamente FT. = )
Right now the unversal system THAT THE TAXPAYERS ARE ALREADY FOOTING THE BILL FOR is the wasteful ER-option. Did you know that ER rooms charge up to eight times what preventative care costs to avoid that visit in the first place? Now you do..
Add to that the other two de facto already-being-payed-for public health entities, Medicaid and the VA and their separate clerical costs, combine the three already existing together and save billions.
So like FT said, NOT passing the Public Option or Single-Payer is absurd. We as taxpayers have a right to cut costs on existing systems. Subsidizing insurance companies who also have to cover CEO bonuses and advertising costs…on top of at-their-whim rate increases to cover only a percentage of those [the rest will still have to use the current taxpayer funded and astronomically costly ER system], is OUT OF THE QUESTION. If that passes my crew will consider it WORSE than if nothing passed at all.
If we don't have a right to cut our own costs on existing government programs then the government has no right to collect taxes from us. Period.
” “Fox most trusted news channel in US, poll shows”. Fox News has a higher approval rating than Obama. What does this say about his first year in office?”
This say more about the ignorance and naivety of Fox News viewers than it does about Obama.
Say what?? Even Congress didn't try that big of a Big Lie.
Their estimates place the cost at $898B; the CBO said $1.055T.
Lunacy.
But that is not an estimate of universal(and I think he meant) single payer system which has been estimated to cost around a quarter of that. Which is why the cheapest options are repeal of all laws and regs on healthcare and make insurance companies illegal while taking out the AMA's stranglehold on the amount of doctors trained OR universal single payer, neither of which would the gov ever pass. So we get to chose between the stupid expensive options that are basically useless, including our current one which is insane. True with single payer their would be maximums and sure if we chucked our entire system and paid out of pocket the streets would be filled with dead and wounded but in a decade it would be affordable again and I am young. I just don't like paying more so people can say the world is more free because I have corporate bureaucrats instead of government ones, either way I am no more free.
“a transformational president, a 'Uniter-in-chief'”
Normal adults have never wanted or sought, nor do they need, such a person or thing.
* * *
“'Universal healthcare massively reduces cost both for individuals and governmentmassively reduces cost both for individuals and government'
Even Congress didn't try that big of a Big Lie.”
The smaller lies they tried were annoying enough.
Cost reduction will remain a solid theme, however. In fact, it will be a reason given for proceeding someday beyond Medicare for All (reducing fraud will also be a claim in support of this objective), to the equivalent of VA (the universal US equivalent of the National Health Service of the UK) for All.
IF that's true, then we are all doomed. And I do mean all.
I like fox news, but it's not the be all and end all.
Oh DLS you just don't like Kool Aid.
“I like fox news”
I find them amusing.
All that, and they're making more money than all the others, combined, while MSNBC, who has chosen to find its own niche by outdoing the liberal orthodoxy and going farther left still, is in the worst shape of all. (Consider the late Air America — what an interesting coincidence. At least in the case of far lefty radio talkers, many of them can make a go of it on their own. There has to be a way far lefty teevee can succeed. Do a good enough job of it and as with the better far lefty radio talkers, they could likely get loyalty to varying degrees of 25 per cent of the population, and capture the youth market, making it a field with a future. Less Olbermanns, more Maddows and Big Eddies, please.)
Why are they amusing? They defy the liberal media orthodoxy, to great success (America's media network, hahahaha), and have gotten so confident they're pushy with their news headlines, which now resemble the also-rare-conservative-biased Washington Times headlines (next to the Post or the N.Y. Times, I used to compare their headlines at newspaper racks when I was in DC metro), and may now be slightly more “entertaining” than the Washington Times's headlines. Not at Newsmax level, though. (“Taxachusetts” in a “news” story or headline will be the day Fox is like Newsmax.)