Did you watch the Obama press conference last night. He was surely on top of his brief on health care. Nobody laid a glove on him.
But a worrisome trend is developing for the White House. Obama is still popular personally but support for his policies is steadily dropping. What Americans seem t be concerned about are the spiralling deficits amounting to trillions of dollars. More worrisome still is the fact that a growing number of voters now think the country under Obama is moving in the wrong direction.
Senator de Mint, a Republican, says the health bill will be Obama’s Waterloo and will break him.
Democrat Tom Daschle says the health legislation will be a defining moment for Obama’s presidency.
Should Obama try to ram the health bill through before the August recess?
Or should he slow down and try to get more Republicans on board?
If Obama fails to get a meaningful health bill through, is his presidency doomed? Will he lose in 2012?
What do you think?
Rightly or wrongly, a lot of Americans are happy with their current health care. They feel threatened that Obama is going to “socialize” their insurance — for example, take away the ability to choose their own doctor — and turn it into a Canadian-like system (again, rightly or wrongly, universal health care is looked upon as an evil for many here and all you have to do is invoke the word “Canada” to get their backs up).
Too many people simply don’t want Obama — who is already going at record speed in persuing his legislative agenda — to mess with their health care.
As for deficits, I heard Obama say yesterday that he “inherited” the deficit from his predecessor. Well, we didn’t elect his predecessor this time around, we elected him and he knew what he was getting into when he asked for the job…and during the campaign he sang a quite different tune about deficits.
Nixon inherited the Vietnam War from the previous two Democrat administrations but, from the first day of his presidency, the Left never spared him their ire for the way he handled it. And there’s no reason Obama should be spared from criticism on deficits.
I also heard Obama say yesterday as fact, with resignation, as if it was already written in stone, that the debt from annual deficits over the next 10 or so years would be $7 trillion, as if there was nothing he could do about it.
What was even more depressing was Obama’s spin on this: his claim that his administration’s work on the projected spending was to reduce it by $2 trillion compared to the course set by Bush’s spending pattern. This is spin that pushes the boundaries of theatrical absurdity and makes me wonder how stupid he thinks we are.
I say: the Americans should bring in retired Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and make him in charge of reducing the deficit. As Finance minister and then as PM, Martin not only reduced Canada’s deficit but created an annual suplus to the budget. And the last time I looked he did it without threatening Canada’s beloved universal health care.
Good morrow, Tony!
“A lot of Americans are happy with their health care…” Would those Americans happen to include those with enough money to have their own doctors, who never have to take a number at emergency or the local walk-in clinic, who write off their insurance premiums, who know that they can call their doctor anytime and receive immediate attention…in other words, NOT the vast majority of working, struggling, tax-paying, UNINSURED Americans?
Too many Americans simply cannot afford to correct an acute or chronic medical problem. That is the problem. “A lot of Americans” is still not the majority of ordinary citizens. If you have names and numbers, Tony, by all means, please share.
BTW, Martin reduced the FEDERAL deficit by offloading it to provincial jurisdictions, who in turn offloaded the overruns to municiapl levels, by denying promised federal transfers, and by withholding provincial income tax collected by Ottawa on behalf of the provinces. How much did he hold back from Quebec? Oops…rhetorical question…
Lace up your wellies tight, boys, it’s piled higher and deeper every day – CTZEn
To call the Canadian health system “socialized” medicine makes about as much sense as calling the American Highway system “socialized” transportation.
Obama will not lose. The people who will benefit from the medical plan and who have no insurance will re-elect him. They are mainly Latinos, Hispanics, Asians and Coloured. That’s 35% of the US population. Slightly more people voted than those who didn’t vote. That means there is a 100 million person float who didn’t vote, which includes a large chunk of poor whites. Obama will go after them. He will also go after the middle west where he could pick up 6 more states. All he has to do is give one speech in German. Remember the fifth estate prints the bad news and on a slow day manufactures it. Obama has to keep pounding the fact that the alternative in the next election is Rush Limberger. He should also rush thru the tax increase for anyone earning over 100K. Obama is very astute. The “anti’s” will meet their Waterloo at the appropriate time. Obama has a few aces up his sleeve.
He should broadcast the fact that any member of Congress who votes down the insurance bill, should be forced to have his own coverage recinded. After all how can you not give your electors the same government coverage that you voted in for yourself and other members of congress.
Ahem.
Jim.
Jimbo.
We don’t use the term “coloured” anymore. It’s “African-American.”
Tony:- When the NAACP change their name from “coloured” to “African-American” then I’ll change. Secondly not all African-Americans are African-American. A 5th generation negro born in England who moves to the U.S. is not an African-American. Does a negro who moves from the U.S. to Britain now become an African-Anglo. What is a negro in Canada named? This “African-American” moniker is strictly a U.S. thing and does not apply outside the U.S. A negro in Brazil does not recognize the moniker “African-American”. Tony, I’m going to end it here ’nuff said. I have one more thought which I will leave unwritten at this time.
Hey, Jim, use whatever term you want. I’m just sayin’…
“Person of colour”…?
What I don’t understand about the present health care system in the U.S., is this. Are wealthy people obliged to take out any insurance at all, whether it be health, life, auto, fire &theft?. If not I would suspect that if a person has a lot of money, what would be the point? just pay as you go.
Therefore, whatever system is in place it wouldn’t effect the wealthy.
Wealthy folk in the US don’t like paying for something if they don’t have to. That’s one reason they are wealthy.
Barbara, in Canada wealthy people can travel and use private services for their health care, but through their health insurance taxes are obliged to support the public health system.
In the U.S., if the wealthy were obliged to pay health insurance taxes it would increase the revenue for overall health care whatever system is in place. As an example, I think the wealthy are obliged to have automobile accident insurance.
Peter:
The only insurance wealthy people are obliged to take out are Social Security and Medicare through their payroll taxes. Also, if they drive, various states require insurance on cars. And if they have a mortgage, some banks require homeowners’ insurance.
Otherwise they are free to “self-insure”.
I must confess to not understanding the question or the issue. Is it that those who can afford health care don’t want to help those who can’t and are going to drive Obama out of office for suggesting they do so?