Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

By DAVID MICHAEL GREEN

Both President Obama’s health care plan and his presidency are going down the toilet.

This is well, and right, and just as it should be.

Obama is turning out to be a disastrous president, wholly unsuited for the times and our national and global challenges, and his job approval ratings reflect this.

In Obama, we get all the corporate toadying of the last Democratic president, along with an even greater unwillingness than Clinton – and who would’ve thought that was possible – to name names, call out enemies, and throw a freakin’ punch every other year or so. (We’re also getting a continuation of the civil rights and civil liberties policies of Dick Cheney, as an extra added bonus, but that’s another story.) What makes it even more astonishing this time around, however, is that we’ve seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. There is apparently absolutely no bottom – as the events of recent weeks have reconfirmed – to the pit of vicious lies, brutal tactics, and democracy-demolishing antics of which regressives will avail themselves in their practice of contemporary American politics. In addition to not being prepared for that, Barack Obama is still seemingly unable to raise his voice a decibel or two against the very people who are helping him to destroy his own presidency. Indeed, he is negotiating ‘bipartisan’ (read: total capitulation) deals with them, even as they relentlessly trash him before a national audience.

Is this president so deluded that he believes there are limitations on what the right will do not only to the republic, for which Obama seems to have only passing regard, but also to his presidency, for which we might imagine he would have at least some concern? Does the Kumbaya Kid think that regressives won’t seek to annihilate him every bit as much as they did Bill Clinton, even as they are obsessing at this very moment over harebrained conspiracy stories challenging his very legal right to be president, his very citizenship? Does this guy who seems to want, more than anything, for everyone just to be happy and sing along in the same key, still really believe in bipartisanship, at the very moment when the very people with whom he is negotiating are reinforcing the most absurd and inflammatory lies asserting the elder-cide intentions of his health-care bill?

Sorry. Did I say “his health-care bill”? Problem number one here is that there’s no such thing. As in just about everything else of consequence this administration has been involved in, he seems quite content to simply defer to Congress and allow the sausage-making process on the Hill to generate precisely the policy abomination one might expect, with all the political liabilities we’ve come to know and love from such a dispiriting collection of 535 (minus two or three) moral midgets.

Sorry. Did I say “defer to Congress”? Looks like I goofed again. What this really means – and this is problem number two – is deferring to a select group of members of Congress. In particular, conservative Democrats and supposedly moderate Republicans (you know, like fuel-efficient Hummers). Right now, for example, probably the two most important actors in America on the healthcare question are Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley. Both have received massive campaign contributions from the industries which have most at stake in this legislation. No doubt, however, that’s entirely a coincidence. What they are doing right now, and what Obama is allowing them to do, is nothing less than neutering any serious aspects of healthcare reform. In the end, having succeeded at doing that, and being the tail that wags the entire dog of this 300 million person country, Grassley won’t even vote for the bill, nor will any Republican. As in the stimulus bill, Obama continues to allow legislation to be murdered by a thousand cuts. All in the name of some bipartisanship god he has taken to worshiping, even though none of the knife-wielders will be around to go anywhere near the stinking corpse they’ve created when it’s eventually tossed up on the congressional slab for a vote. Seems pretty nutty to me, but I guess when you stop and think about it, Obama’s definition of bipartisan participation in the legislative process really does make sense after all: Republicans murder the bill, then Democrats vote for it. Everybody gets to play a part. Everybody contributes.

From what can be gathered so far, the legislation will accomplish very little in terms of real reform, will diminish existing health-care programs, will nevertheless still exacerbate the explosion of national debt, and will not even begin to kick in until 2013. Hey, for all the good this will do Americans, why not just complete the job and have all the benefits go to people living in Kuala Lumpur?

Will healthcare be universal in America, bringing this country into line with the standards of what every other industrialized democracy has practiced for the better part of a century? No. Will we massively increase the amount of actual health care we provide while eliminating the incredible bloat in costs of our predatory, special-interest oriented system by adopting the obvious no-brainer choice of the single-payer model? Fat chance. Will a real public option even be created, which might instantly show up the incredible profiteering and waste in the insurance industry, while simultaneously giving lie to the endless rhetoric about private sector efficiency and government bungling? No, there won’t (but President Obama wants you to know he appreciates your asking). The Capitulation Administration signaled this week that it is giving up on that as well. Because of Republican opposition, of course. You remember those guys don’t you? The folks who have such small minorities in Congress that they can’t even muster forty percent of Senate votes to block consideration of legislation by filibuster?

That’s who Obama is caving to. That’s who’s in charge. It seems that we regular folks are in the process of getting a fresh education about the way American politics really works. Evidently, there’s a new algorithm I wasn’t aware of. It goes like this: When Republicans control Congress and the White House, they rule. When Democrats control Congress and the White House... Republicans still rule. Okay. Well at least we know how it works. And it’s not necessarily all bad news, either. No point in fussing with those messy elections anymore!

Meanwhile, one needn’t dig deep into the bowels of the thousands of pages of legalese contained within the five separate health-care proposals now making their way through Congress in order to figure out whether they contain good news or not. You can tell a lot about somebody or something just by the company they keep. Suffice it to say that both the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are now spending hundreds of millions of dollars running ads on television in favor of healthcare “reform”. I can hardly think of a handier or more pure litmus test for determining whether this is good legislation or not. If those guys are for it, and especially if they’re spending millions to make it happen, it’s a very safe bet that I’m against it. And if those industries are for it, it’s a very safe bet that the deal is they get rich and we get nothing. Except maybe poor. And sick.

The pharmaceutical ads are especially galling, proving that there really is nothing immoral enough to be excluded from the discourse of American politics. These spots feature the two actors who portrayed Harry and Louise – the very same marionettes who whored themselves back in 1993 and got a paycheck in exchange for making sure that tens of millions of Americans would be denied health care in every year since then. Now they’re back, this time advocating for legislation rather than against it, and sanctimoniously telling us that “it’s about time” that “we may finally get healthcare reform”. When “Sally” – slayer of American healthcare for a few shekels of blood money – righteously intones that, “with a little more cooperation, a little less politics, and we can get the job done this time”, I want to reach into the television and detach her head from the rest of her. She certainly isn’t making any use of it. I’d go for the heart, but that seems to have been removed long ago. Is there some reason that these people haven’t been taken out back and shot? And, failing that, do they have some sort of new, special, high-tech pillows that allow folks like this to sleep at night despite a 40,000 ton conscience crushing down on their skulls?

Now why in the world would the insurance and pharmaceutical industries be running ads in favor of healthcare reform? I’m just thinking out loud here, but I wonder if it has anything to do with the deals that a certain Barack Obama has cut with them behind the scenes, promising to limit to pathetically minimal amounts any future inhibitions on the trough-gorging to which they’ve grown well accustomed. In agreements which the New York Times has delicately characterized as “potentially at odds with the president’s rhetoric”, Obama has bought the support of these industries for a pittance. At least, that is, a pittance of his capital. The true costs will continue to fall on tens of millions of Americans with no or lousy healthcare, including the tens of thousands who die each year because of that simple fact. In exchange for their political support, our ‘socialist’ president secretly promised the pharmaceutical and insurance industries that their costs under any new legislation would be capped at $80 and $155 billion, respectively, over ten years time. In short – nickels and dimes.

One might be excused for beginning to get the feeling that what Obama really wants from healthcare reform is simply to be able to say that he did it. No matter that there is almost no reform in his healthcare reform legislation. No matter that he doesn’t even have his own proposal, but is deferring to the worst elements of a legislative body that is a wholly owned subsidiary of American corporate interests. No matter that whatever little effect the legislation will have won’t even begin to be seen for another four years, and then will be phased in after that, over yet another period of several years. And no matter that, even after the law goes into effect, this country will continue to suffer from all the major maladies of a system designed principally to provide profits for a few, rather than healthcare for all.

What continues to astonish me, however, is what passes for political calculus in the White House these days. I never assumed that Obama would necessarily be any different from Bill Clinton, in the sense that he might actually have a set of good progressive politics or that he might actually give a damn about the American public. No disappointment there (although did he have to be even worse than that, more like Bush than Clinton?). However, I always assume that almost all politicians are completely consumed by the one thing that Clinton was ever truly passionate about: self-interest.

But, even purely from that narrowest of perspectives, does the Obama team actually believe that their strategy is helping their guy politically? Do they really like the way that their failure to articulate a plan, or even a set of fundamental principles, has worked out in terms of shaping the debate over healthcare? Is it really their belief that they can go to the voters in 2012 and win their hearts with a nothingburger healthcare plan, passed three years prior, and due to fully kick in three years hence? I hate more than a root canal sans novocaine to sound like one of the regressives whom I so very much loathe, but if this is the level of political sophistication to be found in the Obama White House, then, no, as a matter of fact, I really don’t want this clown negotiating with Vladimir Putin.

Barack Obama has given us the worst of all worlds. Passage of a healthcare reform bill – even something barely remotely worthy of the name – now seems like a dubious proposition. If it does pass, it won’t be worth squat. Meanwhile, all the ugliest and most deceitful tactics of regressive politics have floated to the surface in the cesspool of American political discourse, weakly countered at best by a White House that could make SpongeBob SquarePants look like the love child of Genghis Khan and Joseph Stalin by comparison, and is so lame that it couldn’t anticipate and inoculate against these assaults that any fool who wasn’t entirely comatose over the last three decades could plainly see were coming. Worst of all, when the smoke finally clears, this debacle will entail a massive discrediting of so-called liberalism, and a severe imperiling of the Democratic Party (not that it much matters) in the next two election cycles. Think about that for a second. How absolutely, utterly, magnificently inept does one have to be to have revived the hopes of the GOP, a mere 200 days after George W. Bush and Dick Cheney left office? Not just any idiot could pull off a stunt that big, I tell ya. A job like that requires a world-class moron.

What Obama should have done is simple, and therefore all the more astonishing that they missed it. First off, he should have formulated a serious plan (perhaps in faux negotiations with certain key congressional leaders, to make them feel powerful and included, perhaps not), and stuck with it. At the very least, he should have articulated three or four non-negotiable key principles that he demanded from any healthcare legislation. These should have revolved around ideas that are simple to grasp and clearly beneficial to non-elite Americans. He should have sold that plan at big staged events, such as televised addresses to both houses of Congress – rather than these pathetic press conferences he keeps giving, where the press can ask any question they want, and where an unscripted Professor Wonk rambles out ten minute answers, chock full of pauses and clauses, guaranteed to anesthetize his audience or divert their attention entirely, to another subject altogether (can you say “Henry Lewis Gates”?).

He should have named enemies, right from the beginning. He should have warned Americans about what these people would do in the ensuing weeks and months. And he should have called them out on it, angrily and by name, when they in fact did it. When they started lying and frightening senior citizens in order to protect their legalized scams from reform, he should have slugged them so hard they were knocked on their fat corporate asses, never to rise again. He should’ve called them greedy, selfish, treasonous traitors who are willing to lie and steal to further enrich their bloated selves, while tens of thousands of Americans die every year from lack of medical care.

Above all, what Obama should have done was shown some passion. The unflappable conciliatory professor act has got to go. Here’s a newsflash (evidently) for the Obama White House: If the president has any desire to sell his policies, he’s got to sell his policies. If he wants to lead, he has to lead. And if he wants our support, he’s got to tell us why this is important. With juice. Mr. Folksy isn’t getting it – not by a long shot.

Finally, Obama should’ve jammed his plan down the throats of Congress, where – though you’d never know it – his party commands massive and filibuster-proof majorities. I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t think the nineteenth century model of the presidency is particularly appropriate here in the twenty-first. We got Social Security and the rest of the New Deal programs because Franklin Roosevelt twisted arms on Capitol Hill. We got Medicare and Medicaid and civil rights because Lyndon Johnson nearly pulled those arms out of their sockets, jamming his bills through a reluctant Congress by means of big carrots, bigger sticks, and razor-sharp strategy.

What did Millard Fillmore get? James Buchanan? If you can’t remember, don’t worry – it doesn’t mean that you’re deficient as a student of American history. It just means that they didn’t get anything worth remembering. Why is it that, in our time, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush get everything they want from Congress, while Bill Clinton and Barack Obama – even after they’ve completely sold out to Wall Street, and even when they have massive majorities in Congress – wind up as if they’re the main source of entertainment for the fellas on Cell Block D? Neither FDR nor Harry Truman nor Lyndon Johnson would recognize the Democratic Party anymore. Unless they inadvertently mistook it for a squashed bug in the foyer of the GOP’s headquarters.

Having lived through the incredibly dismal Clinton era, I’m not exactly surprised to have another Democratic president whose only real constituents can be found in corporate boardrooms. I am, however, shocked to have one who seemingly learned nothing from the experience of the Clinton years, who appears to be even more conciliatory than the foolish “Please sir, may I have another?” Clinton himself was, and who apparently lacks any real instinct even for political self-preservation.

So I have to ask: Hey, Barack. How’s this working out for you? In eight months time you’ve squandered a massive and historic opportunity. You’ve resuscitated a murderously evil political party that, with a little shove in the right direction, might instead have been buried dead forever. You’ve let just about anybody say just about anything regarding you and your policies, without consequence. People are running around claiming that you’re gonna kill grannies, and millions believe them. You’re being pilloried for the bogus failures of the British healthcare system, and your mealy-mouthed-room-temperature-yesterday’s-leftover-oatmeal proposal – such that you even have one – doesn’t even bear the slightest resemblance to the NHS.

You’ve produced nothing of consequence in your Hundred Days, nor even in two hundred. Historians will not mention you in the same breath as FDR, but rather right alongside the wondrous Mr. Fillmore. You’ve responded to epic crises with half-measures that have produced quarter-results. In the short period of your presidency, your job approval ratings have fallen from the high sixties to the low fifties. In addition to those numbers beginning to look a lot like the guy with a cane walking onto your stage, they represent twice the drop an idiot named George W. Bush sustained during his first eight months in office. Maybe because he accomplished far more in that time. Far more (horrid though it was), as a matter of fact, than you are likely to do in four years, at the rate you’re going. Far more, even with a split Congress. How about that, Brother Barack? You’re getting your ass kicked by the worst president in all of American history.

So, dude, how’s this working out for you?

For me? Not so good. I was hoping for something else. Know what I mean?

I will say, however, that you seem to be a very, very nice young man. Yes, yes – very nice indeed. Definitely.

So much so that I give you my word: If I ever want someone for my president who is so nice that he even lets vicious political savages tear him to shreds while they’re wrecking the country at the same time...

I promise that you’ll have my vote.

David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.





http://www.counterpunch.org/green08192009.html

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Wow, I was just talking about Obama's premature e-judge-ulation showing up in the press. ZOMG POLLS!!!!

Faux(Fox) News had a headline calling the man a lame duck, and the first year ain't even over! LOL!

Ah, watching the U.S. Right-wing grow desperate, acting all hyperbolic and hysterical, has been fun, but so-so unproductive.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

While I do agree it's too early to declare Obama's presidency a loss, to be fair his overall approval has dropped pretty significantly in a short amount of time. This could be because of disillusioned voters who thought Obama would take office snap his fingers and "make all better". Simply put, even if such a thing were humanly possible, a president obeying the system into which he's been elected would be restricted in doing so.

Personally, I'm not overly fond of his policies myself, but then, I tend to lean conservative. Sometimes heavily conservative depending on the issue.

Just my thoughts.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Hehe, well now we know for sure IW is back :). Didn't read the full length of the above wall of text but, regardless of Rush and co. wanting him to fail, that is very different than him actually failing. It's almost like they decided if they think it enough then it will become true. Stupid really.

I think he's been absolutely stellar, personally. It is such a pleasure to watch a president who can actually talk for one. Secondly, he can address an audience, take live questions from supporters and critics alike, and answer them thoughtfully. That, in itself is such a refreshing change from the blubbering we got so used to seeing in the past.

I only wish the idiots that are screaming dumbass things like "keep the goverment out of my medicare" (lawl) would stfu for a minute and let him help them. They act like they're so terrified about entities deciding who gets care and who doesn't, that they forget someone already does that, and screws them bigtime for it. These are known as Health Insurance Companies and they have much blood on their hands. This is the very reason it's in dire need of a revamp.

A part of me wishes we could take the people who (for reasons that are beyond me) actually want to hold on to the current broken system, and seperate them into their own state. I mean, why help people who don't want to be helped? Don't let them drag the rest of us down with them, just because they are clueless and protest about something of which they have no idea. Let 'em keep their shoddy system and let it continue to leech their money, and deny their claims and treatment, refuse to pay for their surgeries and politely point them to the small print during their medical emergencies. Meanwhile, the rest of us can join the ranks of the developed world and actually enact a comprehensive healthcare system - the USA are the only ones who don't have one yet, you know.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

You folks realize that the above article is a whine from a left-leaning academic that Obama isn't "Left enough" for him. I tend to agree. Obama needs to be more hardass.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

<font color=plum>Just a couple of points I think deserve to be clarified here.

Obama may be a moderately better speaker than Bush was, but he isn't that much better. When he doesn't have a teleprompter or scripted speech to follow, he has a far more difficult time. Not saying that's a horrible thing, just pointing out that the polish comes of his speech very quickly when he is in a live and unrehearsed setting.

Almost all of his "live" appearances have been in front of a hand-picked audience with pre-screened questions. His "town hall" meeting on ABC several months ago was nothing more than a scripted infomercial. Even the reporters at the press conferences are encouraged to send their questions to the Press Secretary ahead of time. This is done under the guise of letting Obama "know what issues concern you and your viewers/readers", but of course what it really accomplishes is giving his writers time to script an answer for the question.

I'm not suggesting he is the first POTUS to do this. I'm sure this has been practiced for several years in fact. I'm just pointing out the man isn't as polished when he is put in front of a real audience (ie, NOT hand picked) and has no idea what questions he will be asked.

Now, as for the health care system itself. While it definitely needs work, it does not necessarily need a complete overhaul. I have an old pickup truck and the brakes went out on it last time I used it. That means I need to get the brakes fixed, but it does not mean I need to rebuild the entire truck.

There is propoganda in the form of "horror stories" on both sides of the health care issue. For every example you list of someone being dropped or denied payment under the US system, I can name someone who has suffered excessively or died under the Euro system. And these are first-hand accounts. I had lunch with some of former classmates earlier this week. One of them has family in several European countries and she named incident after incident (in different countries) where they had suffered due to lack of proper health care.

I am personally one of the "statistics" supporters like to quote when discussing the eeeeevil insurance companies. I have a chronic illness that has caused 7 major surgeries (to date), life-altering consequences and massive medical bills. My last stay in the hospital was for 6 weeks. When I got home, I had bills from about 15 different doctors, services and facilities. My hospital bill ALONE was over $250,000. I've had multiple surgeries under 3 different insurance carriers over the years. I have NEVER been "dropped" from coverage NOR had claims denied for the services I recieved. Now, to be honost, I did lose my manager position at a small hospital immediately after returning to work from my second surgery. I have no doubt I was fired because of the effect my two surgeries had on the insurance, but it wasn't the insurance carrier that dropped me. That decision was made by the hospital administrator.

That still leaves 5 major surgeries under two other carriers and I've had no problem with my claims being paid for any of those. During my last stay, I went to the local hospital and was then transferred to a much larger hospital in Atlanta. My bill at the local hospital (6k+) was paid in full, because my deductible had long since been met when that bill was submitted. I never paid a penny on the $250k bill from the other hospital either. One reason was a grievance we pursued due to severe negligence on the part of their nurses (which very nearly cost my life). The hospital "investigated" the matter and managed to produce "proper documentation" that the nurses had performed their jobs properly. I refused to send them any money and they quit sending bills after the second month.</font>

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Not true, there's no clips of him staring into space when faced with a difficult question, stammering like an idiot, or making things up because he doesn't understand what the question actually meant, but wants to maintain the illusion that he actually does. There are many of the other guy, go on Youtube and you'll find 'em. Hilarious. Letterman used them on his show for years also.

Untrue also, about scripted and pre-screened questions, look at those town-hall meetings and tell me if someone could make that shit up. Look at that Major Garret dude in the press conferences...hardly hand-picked. While yes, he will do some stuff which is all from speech and prompter and he will always do, I am very impressed with the fact that he isn't afraid to go off queue. I think he heard some of the prompter criticism coming from the right, and set out to demonstrate what a great, "ad lib" speaker he can be. Of course, speeches and lines will always and have always been written for presidents and politicians. I just think he can do either or, and do them amazingly.


We disagree here. I am a little surprised. Sometimes, a car is so messed up it needs to be scrapped and you need to buy a new one. Ideally we want to keep it, but when it is so messed up to the point where its just rotten, you want to rebuild from the base up

There is very little propoganda on the pro health care reform side, compared to the absolute insanity and stupidity and overall idiocy we are seeing on the right atm. Even their conservative leaders are surprised by the level of hate. I am more sickened at the level of misinformation.
Nobody "dies" under the Euro system, lol. I know nobody who had died waiting for treatment, or has expereinced 'ration" care etc. I have lived in multiple European countries too.

Tell me of some of these examples, because they are absolutely alien to me. What people don't understand is, in most of Europe, you can choose to pay for your healthcare like Americans do if you so wish to. If you really had an issue with the free system, you could go to a private hopsital and pay. Most american hospitals are what Europe would consider "private", yet they look the same and give the same treatment as the "public" ones - they just charge you a lot more. So, with this in mind, if someone died under the Euro system then they would have died twice under the US one. Because the US system demands that you pay them or it can refuse you treatment. The Euro system treats you for free - or treats you for a fraction of the amount it would cost you at home. These nations are healthier than America and are physically happier too. Their doctors get paid to encourage you to stop smoking, eat right, and excercise. The US doctors get paid when someone has gastric bypass surgery.

See, this is a good story, one that makes me wonder why you ain't 100% on board with this reform.

The thing is, it wouldn't cost you 6k or 250k in other countries. You got very lucky here, where your insurance company actually footed the bill for you, and so it creates the illusion that the system is working for you. But 250k? My God, that is an untinkable amount just for your own health. Your own country expects you to pay that just for the right to survive. I find this fundamentally wrong.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

TYVM for teh cliff notes!!! :)

With all the whiny-ness coming from the right it's understandable I would mistake the leanings of any author of a wall of text with that title.

I really should have known because no where on that wall was Obama refered to as Hitler. ;)

Seriously, I tend to agree as well. Healthcare is one rare issue I'm way more liberal than libertarian. Making it universally affordable is a plain matter of conscience and compassion.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Today's kudos go out to ElfBane!!!

Some people would like to see the USA go the route of the tried and failed EU, and make us a basket-case with them. To those people, I say, we should place you into a state of your own, and let you do as you please following the tried and failed system.

The rest of us can take up our wants and concerns and create a better place right here, with a system that may need some rebuilding, but not complete overhauling to the point of gross negligence.

We start by first rebuilding government funded health care, WHAT? Surely you realize it exists? I have it! It takes me on average 21 days to get a routine appointment which requires a visit with "a" doctor, mind you, I've had four (doctors, (erm, medical diploma holding people with ESL)) in just five years of the program. If I'm really sick, I might get in within 10 days. Worse case is ER, which has been as little as 3 hours with spousal unit bleeding after surgery complications, up-to 9 hours, for daughter element with ankle injury from soccer. If that is what you are dying to have, I'll gladly give you mine!

Welfare reform? Where is it? When is it going to be pushed down their throats? Ah, those energies went to "Beer Summit" 09!

The rest? Only time will tell, once he gets done visiting the Grand Canyon and Martha's Vineyard!

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

What a fantastic article.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Would you expect anything less from Dr. David Michael Green, an associate professor of Political Science at Hofstra University, New York?

For you GWB haters, you might have wanted to forget, Dr. Green bashed the "Bushies" fairly regularly, and without remorse. So go ahead and admit it, he's still telling the truth! He is heavily left leaning. AND, he has no concerns about doing such!

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

He's stupid tho.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

LOL "the truth"
Stupid hyperbolic opinions far from that.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

I feel sorry for this guy's students. A pol sci prof who fails to grasp the simple demographics of the Democratic party, incorrectly attributing Republicans for Obama's apparent flexible stance in discussing the Healthcare dilema when it is more likely the concerns of Independents and Democrats. He is trying to put the fear of Republicans into Liberals, not exposing truth.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

<font color=plum>My response was that Obama is not as polished and smooth when he has to go off queue. There are several videos of this on Youtube as well</font>

<font color=plum>I specifically mentioned the meetings at which Obama appears. Those have most definitely been hand-picked audiences. Many of the other town-hall meetings have been as well. Yes, some members of the general public have been allowed in - and many have behaved very badly. I'm unable to find the link right now, but I saw a video made at one of these meetings. There is a loooooooong line of general public people waiting to get in the main entrance. Meanwhile, there is a second entrance with a sign reading "HANDICAPPED ONLY" where two young workers point the way for very healthy looking people to walk on in. Maybe that's one reason the ones who had to wait hours to get inside are so upset.</font>

<font color=plum>When 85% of the car works, it is not so messed up that it needs to be trashed to fix the other 15%. The Administrations own numbers show that 85% of Americans have health care insurance, so their health care is covered. The other 15% is actually somewhat fuzzy if you look at it closely enough. The 15% includes illegal aliens, people temporarily between jobs (many of have subsequently found jobs and regained health care coverage) and a small portion of Americans who are rich enough to choose NOT to buy health care because they feel they can pay their medical bills on their own. It doesn't cancel out the entire 15%, of course, but the supposed concern is for those Americans who can not GET insurance at all and that number is actually much smaller than the 15% that is continuously quoted.</font>

<font color=plum>I've just given you one example of propoganda used by the pro health care side.

And I do know someone who died in Germany while waiting for surgery. She was a classmate of mine from 1st grade through graduation. She married right out of high school and her husband was in the Army. While he was stationed in Germany, she became severely ill and went to the doctor. She was diagnosed with a conditon that required surgery and placed on a list to await an open surgical date. She died while waiting for the surgery. I don't remember the exact diagnosis, because she died more than 20 years ago.</font>

<font color=plum>Very well. One of my classmates has family in different Euro countries. Her sister lives in Holland. She developed a very rare and extremely dangerous type of hernia. She went to her doctor and was told that hernia repair was cosmetic surgery and unnecessary, therefore it was not covered by the national health plan. And, unlike some other Euro countries, Holland does not have a private insurance option. It is national health care - period. (at least it was at the time of this incident). So she was told point blank she could not have her hernia repaired in Holland. She made arrangements to have the surgery in England at her own expense. The surgeon did not perform the surgery correctly and she ended up in just as bad a condition as before.

The mother of these girls lives in England. When she went to the hospital with a heart attack, she was told she needed an EKG to determine how much damage may have been done to her heart. She did receive the EKG - nine months later! Meanwhile, EKGs are a routine part any ER visit in America for heart or breathing problems.</font>

<font color=plum>Totally and completely wrong. In fact, hospitals cannot refuse treatment based on the patient's ability to pay. It is against the law to do so.</font>

<font color=plum>Doctor's in America also encourage their patients to eat right, stop smoking and excersice every single day and have done so for several years. But Americans are generally a very self-indugent people. It is not the fault of our healthcare system that we - as a nation - do not exercise as often as we should, eat high fat fast food and engage in other personal choice habits that are unhealthy.

This is another example of the propoganda from the pro health side. The information may be technically correct, but the discrepency of the statistics is not the result of our health care system. It is a result of our chosen lifestyle.</font>

<font color=plum>I've stated a number of times that our health care systems needs to be reformed and repaired, but it does NOT need to be completely overhauled, because it DOES work for the most part.

Why am I not 100% on board with this reform? Several reasons. First and foremost, Pelosi and Obama did their damndest to force this 1,000 pg bill through before the August recess. They have launched a multimedia campaign trying to create rising hysteria that health care must be fixed RIGHT NOW!!!!! According to them, we can't wait another second. But health care has needed repair for several years. While it needs to be fixed, it isn't going to do irreparable damage to wait a few weeks (or even a few months) to make sure the reform that goes through is one that will actually address the problems the general public faces.

Another reason is the fact that there are several hidden clauses within this 1,000 pg bill. The most recent that came to light is a section that wants to grant the government total access to the financial information and records of the American citizens. The plan describes establishing a "real time or near real time access to the bank accounts of those using the Obamacare system in order to determine the patient's financial ability to pay and enable quick and easy electronic transfer of funds. The person explaining that section said they envision a health-care card that contains the person's medical history and financial account information. There are several problems with this scenario, not the least of which is the fact that a such a card would be a violation of your privacy rights because the integrity of the card cannot be adequately safeguarded. Second is the fact that this would give the government all of your financial data without your approval. Finally, the fact that they can determine your "ability to pay" raises the very real possibility that government COULD then deny treatment due to an inability to pay. Even if you have the ability, the government could possibly decide you aren't paying your bill quickly enough and use the financial information from your health-care card to garnish your account for a more acceptable payment amount.

Those are just a few reasons why I'm not 100% on board with the current reform.

Oh, one last bit of support propoganda - it was NOT my "country" that expected me to pay 6k and 250k for my health. Those prices were set by the two medical facilities and - as I've already stated - the cost for those facilities was covered by my insurance. I did not have to pay a penny of the 6k bill and would only have had to pay a fraction of the 250k bill.

Each insurance policy has a deductible amount, which the patient must pay at 100% before the insurance picks up the cost. Typical deductibles range from $250-$1000. Once the patient/policyholder pays that amount (which can easily be met with one visit to the ER), then the insurance starts paying 80% of the remaining medical costs. Each policy also has a maximum "out-of-pocket" (OOP) amount for the patient/policyholder. This is typically $2,000-5,000. That means that the patient pays 100% of the deductible amount, then 20% of all remaining bills until they have paid the maximum OOP amount. After that, the insurance policy pays 100% of ALL remaining costs.

So, out of my 6 week hospital stay, the total amount I would have been required to pay would have been $2,500 (my OOP amount). Since I refused to pay the 250k bill, my actual out of pocket amount was less than $2,000.

While other countries may offer national healthcare to everyone, it is NOT "free". The costs of the procedures, supplies, equipment and personnel HAVE to be paid somehow. If you don't pay for your healthcare through insurance premiums, you are paying for it through taxes. The cost is still there, it just falls under a different category.</font>

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

See that now looks different to what you originally said, so we now agree here, since the majority of people will not be flawless when speaking without help. My point was, with or without help, GWB was terrible at it.

He did some town hall meetings too.

See, this speaks to the reason we are debating this. I feel it is a disconnect to say that 85% of the joke that passes for healthcare in the US, actually works.

How was that an example of propaganda on the pro health care reform side..?

There's alot of stuff tied into there, this story is and would be an ideal "scary story" but for that fact that some of it is untrue and some of it is odd or rare in the events contained within. Some quick points.

For one, Holland, like all countries, has its own private hopspitals and doctors and surgeons. It always has. Anyone willing to pay would find one. Nobody is forced to stick by the free version. Dunno where this happend unless it was decades ago..? Odd.

"Surgeon in England performed the surgery wrong and left in a worse condition". May well have happend. Happens everywhere. Ironically, the US has one of the worst medical malpractice ratings and this is why they had to enact laws capping the amount an american could sue their doctor for. But yeah, fux ups happen everywhere - unfortunate fact of life. Less in Britain though, compared to the US.

9 month EKG when visiting the ER. Odd, I know someone who got one and a slew of other tests in the British ER just recently. and very promptly. Either this is not the whole truth (i.e. something we don't know here) or it wasn't actually an emergency. Nowhere in Britain will tell you to go away for almost a year until your "emergency" can be addressed. Please. This is the stuff that feeds the stupid people in these protests. What country would stand for this level of healthcare if it was true?

Unfortunately, no. While yes, there are laws enacted to ensure nobody gets refused, they don't work in practice as well as they should. ER cases do work, for the most part. I mean, you will get rushed to hospital and charged up the ass later. But, non-emergency cases all too often get refused, because they have no insurance. Homeless people are turned away, poor people are asked to leave. Haven't you ever heard of the practice of "floating" a patient? It means when someone doesn't have insurance and the doctors know they can't pay, but they try to do a good thing and let them freeload off the system for awhile, so they can get the treatment they need. This is from the doctor's heart, but it is against their hospitals official policy. Then, different states have different laws, many have found loopholes to rake in the highest amount of profit with the least amount of work.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

I know I didn't respond to your last 2 paragraphs, but will later on as I am a little cut for time atm and also want to keep the walls of text to a minimum, as they are hard on the eyes.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Then go ahead and do like that woman in Florida. Admit you were charmed by inspirational speeches, voted for the fairy tale adventure, and now have come to realize it's not gonna happen. Then voice your opinion about your true feelings, and let your politicians know where and how you stand. Surely, they can take that, for maybe only three have as much faith in the POTUS as do you. Of those three, one's got one foot in the grave, another is a case of her own making, and the third will attempt to take control in 0'12.

However, we are all well to aware of your unwavering love for him, and how could you speak out against him in public? After all, you enjoy walls of text, likening to POTUS, who is eloquent when he has the prompter rolling, you enjoy adding :twocents: to everybody's reply.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Oh Felix, you're such a nutjob :).

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Yorick, why did you copy the entire article? There are problems with the server at the moment, so it could have slowed it down. Not a criticism, just a question.

This is why I am happy I live in Australia. We have a lot less problems. I think health care is cheaper over here too, as are hospital expenses.

But, we have some of the same problems with health care. My friend tore two ligaments in her knee as well as bruising the bone, and has to wait six months for a knee reconstruction. It could be worse, but it's not good.

It's not only America that has problems. You guys just have particularly bad, publicised ones.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Then you must learn how to toss her about more gently.

Because we are always in the lime light, bad, worse, or indifferent, but very rarely the good. Then again that would make for boring reporting, right?

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

If the rest of the world suddenly decided they liked the US, they'd have no one to hate. At which point there would be no one to talk about.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

That is very true.

By the way, we didn't throw her around. She threw herself around playing netball. Dangerous games, team sports. So glad I don't play them.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

While its still a bit early I'm leaning towards agreeing that Obama will be a failed president. I'm giving him as much a chance I gave Bush, and at this point in time both disappoint. Though at least god hasnt told Obama to invade anyone (yet).

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

God told Bush to invade people? I thought it was the little crazy person we all hide inside our minds (meet Sir Spamelot/Sister Necros).

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

I must've missed that speach.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Yes, you must've.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

No, it was most certainly and most definately God. Because, you know, God likes invasion and killing and stuff and Bush is a Christian so it makes sense he'd be chosen for this. Don't dare argue it, when God tells you to do something you just do it!

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Your president is good at killing a fly though.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

That's because he's a ninja IRL.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Dick Cheney's pissed you've reveal his secret identity! I advise a bulletproof face-mask. :laugh:

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Well I don't know much about US politics so my opinion probably counts for jack shit. But it seems to me that if Bush hadn't become one of the presidents with the worst approval ratings in history, and if McCain hadn't made such an arse of himself during the campaign, maybe Obama or a Democrat wouldn't have been elected. Ya gotta take your licks I reckon. The American people spoke via the electoral process. If Obama fails, then punish him and grind him into the dirt. But shouldn't people at least give him a go to see if his way works? That's what confuses me about politics in this country.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

I think many Americans need to realize just how much he is improving your over-seas image.

You might not think that is important, but it is.

Besides, give the guy a chance to clear out the cobwebs and corrupt officials.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

You have some valid points, however, from your point of view, they might carry a different scene than from here.

The problem with our overseas imagine is the more "he improves" it, the more we look like Europe and *NOT* America. If we wanted an EU footprint, then that is where we should expect to find it, not here.

Bureaucrats! Look at the profiles of the politicians (crooks) he has assigned to his cabinet.

What part of Denmark do you hail from?
I have visited Odense and that immediate area. Thou it has been several years, I recall some very interesting historic sites, and of all things, the bicycle ride to the zoo!

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

EU do many things better than America, we should copy them. Also, the reason why terrorists want to attack America just for the sake of attacking it, is largely based on public image. Improving your image around the world can only help. Then we can truly say "He kept us safe".

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

I challenge you to name three things the EU does better than America!

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Bunching the EU together as "one state" is very wrong. There are vast differences.

But sure, I'll bite;

Based on Denmark;

Public Healthcare
Consumer Security
Social Welfare for any and all, no-one is homeless unless it's by choice. (Yes, really.)
Better public transportation options
We don't have your propaganda during election time
Guns aren't as big of a problem, due to very low availability. They have become an increasing problem in more recent years, particularly due to refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan.
We don't have the whole "two party political system", our current government is made up of two parties and a support party. This gives us greater political variety, and prevents right/left wing nuts from gaining solitary control and thus preventing massive change after each election. Things do change, but at a much slower pace. (Which is good, in my opinion.)
We have more government oversight of private business.
Hospital care is free for everyone, you get what you need.
You get money "State Educational Support" when you attend higher educational institutions - to ensure that most people have a higher education (Business school, technical school etc.) or College education.

There's probably more, that's just on top of my head.

To answer your question about my location; I'm currently in Kolding in Jutland, pretty close to Odense (Birth place of H.C Andersen) and I'm likely to move to Copenhagen in the near future.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Healthcare, Religion, Guns.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Wow, me and Froberg posted at the same time, yet he mentioned almost the same things I did, and then some.

Re: Guess What? He's a Terrible President
 

Great minds and all that jazz I guess ;)