Barack Obama Failed
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Very well put.
I disagree.
In terms of direct experience (ie. how many nations have you been leader of?) there are no parallel roles that would be 'equal'. However, having an understanding of the dynamics that are important are entirely relevant.
No, it is not reasonable that a President would be a master economist, social engineer, military tactician, etc.. An individual will rely on the advisors and party members that they surround themselves with. But what this does require is that the resident of the Oval Office is the one that has to balance all of the needs, requirements, etc and make the final decision(s) on the go-forward options that are forwarded
I believe that it is fair to say that Obama and his predecessors are ultimately the manager of a massive collective
I LOVE Sheriff J Dubya Peppa
I agree with everything you've said. The problem is that I can't think of any experience relevant to those, admittedly essential, skills. Lincoln had practically zero experience at running, or even being part of, an organization. As I've pointed out, Coolidge had tons.
I think that we are basically on the same page here (probably also fair to say that only drooling baboons would challenge the combined sagacity of the inputs LOL)
The only comment that comes to mind regarding historical figures is that the world has changed so dramatically in the last few decades... Aggressive globalization, technology and fiscal realities have changed the face of politics, lifestyles and (cultural) conflicts - I'm thinking more international here.
Can you possibly imagine parachuting FDR, Coolidge or Lincoln into the Oval Office today?
The only comment that comes to mind regarding historical figures is that the world has changed so dramatically in the last few decades... Aggressive globalization, technology and fiscal realities have changed the face of politics, lifestyles and (cultural) conflicts - I'm thinking more international here.
Can you possibly imagine parachuting FDR, Coolidge or Lincoln into the Oval Office today?
It is not an excuse, it is a question regarding your "experience" point. What counts as "practical experience" for dealing with those things?
As usual, we fight so much for people who are in basic agreement that I think we must be related.
Agreed with this, too. I just don't see any correlation. Kennedy, legislative experience. Johnson, tons of legislative experience. Nixon, legislative experience. Ford, the same. Carter, executive experience. Reagan, executive. Bush I, executive. Clinton, executive. Bush II, executive. Obama, legislative and limited (about like Kennedy).
It's hard to see how this correlates to good or bad Presidents.
Wanted: Chief Executive. Must have 12+ years experience as chief executive of a superpower, a positive attitude, and great people skills. Conversational Spanish a plus. $400,000/yr, housing, and company car.
Absolutely. The USA (both parties) are insane on the subject of health care.
But Obamacare is turning out to be the worst possible option.
How do you figure?
This system is essentially the same as what they had before, except it will ensure that more people actually have insurance, so it is hard to imagine it working out worse than the status quo.
Up until this point, it has insured LESS people are covered......as of January 1, 4.7 million Americans had their insurance cancelled.
Two million had signed on to Obamacare.
It's official: Obamacare debuts with more canceled plans than enrollments | The Daily Caller
The supporters of Obamacare say many of those were automatically signed up to new plans.....
What they don't tell you is the new plans can cost two or three times the old plan........and will not be opened, as the people can not afford them.
Losing health insurance for 2014 - Jan. 9, 2014
The premise of your argument doesn't really work since you claim people wont sign up for new plans, but they legally have to.
There is so much partial information being tossed around right now and a lot of it is simply wrong. So many of the horror stories that are publicized end up being incorrect when all the facts come out.
People need time to work through the transition, see what funding they might qualify for. Making everyone obtain proper insurance is obviously going to have upfront costs, but the real test is how total costs work out over time.
The enrollment period ends on March 31, 2014. Btw, most of the people who have signed up for an exchange under Obamacare already had insurance coverage. The majority of the uninsured haven't signed up. Obamacare was designed to help the uninsured.
If you have a job... you're paying.
I love how everyone thought they were getting subsidies or free health care. It is hilarious.
Like I said, it takes time. Judging this based on partial info about progress a few months in really doesn't tell you much.
What does that mean? People who have jobs have always been paying for health care one way or another.
The administration admitted that even after full implementation, 5-8% of the people would not be covered for health care. 33 systems available in the OECD to copy, all of which provide universal coverage and comparable outcomes at about 50% of the per capita cost. Obamacare failed two of those criteria, and the third is still up in the air.
This is a really ridiculous assessment to make at this point. How on earth can you assess costs and outcomes before the system is even up and running?
Umm. . . because even the systems strongest proponents admit it won't come anywhere near universal coverage? And because there are no cost controls?
