In a column yesterday, Roger Simon, the Chief Political Columnist of Politico, made the case for call for President Barack Obama to be more bold when it comes to a number of issues, including health care reform (emphasis mine):
Barack Obama was not elected to be timid. His motto during the campaign was “change,” not “cringe.”
It is not all that important where the Olympics are held. (It is a TV show; who cares what country it is in?) What is important is the lesson Obama learns from his defeat.
The wrong lesson is: Take the easy path, play the safe bet, risk nothing.
The right lesson comes directly from Vince Lombardi: “Winners never quit, and quitters never win.”
Barack Obama was elected to do bold things. And in difficult times, boldness is needed most.
So what should he do now? First, he should be bold on health care. Congress is not a place where boldness happens. Congress is a place where boldness goes to die.
Obama needs to be bold in backing the public option. The White House did not anticipate that the public would actually care about the public option. But it does. The public option is not the choice of “left-wing” America. (Left-wingers want a single-payer plan, like Canada’s.) The public option is the choice of mainstream America.
Simon also makes the case for President Obama to be bold on foreign policy, specifically the war in Afghanistant:
Internationally, the president needs to be bold on Afghanistan. He needs to boldly stand up to those generals calling for more troops and say no.
More troops in Afghanistan will not protect America from the terrorists. More troops in Afghanistan will merely put more Americans within easy reach of the terrorists.
I can only speak for myself when I say that I voted for Barack Obama for president because I wanted a president who would make bold choices and shake up the status quo. I hoped that president would be Barack Obama, and that’s what I’m still hoping.
About all I have to add is I hope the President takes Simon’s advice. Unfortunately a highly vocal minority is still at work making it appear that health-care reform is unpopular. Check out the guy in the picture. He is furious at the prospect of reform. He is also a financial consultant. I bet he has good insurance. The article also mentions tort reform as being all that is needed. So those Doctor’s don’t have anyone taking their money away. I want to end frivilous lawsuits too, but the argument from the right is that the only aspect of health care that needs to be changed is the ability to sue a doctor. Once again, I bet all these people have wonderful health insurance.
Pay attention Jim….. You have a supermajority. What’s holding him up. It’s not just the right who think the so-called healthcare reform that’s not being debated is a problem, it’s democrats as well. Democrats fearing for their political lives because they know it’s not what the majority wants. Can you honestly look at yourself in the mirror and say “Yes…I believe them when they say it’s budget neutral.” The CBO tells a different story and the public wants debate on the trillions Obama and the dems want to spend. This president and congress make Tommy Thompson look like an uber fiscal conservative and after a short nine months, people don’t like it. If all you believe is the right thinks tort reform is the answer than you aren’t paying attention much like Obama, Pelosi, et al….
I think the problem of the holdout Dems is what I stated above: A highly vocal minority, screamers at town hall meetings.
About budget neutrality: Maybe, maybe not. I know when people don’t have to wait until they are so sick they go to an emergency room and stiff the hospital (spreading the bill around to everybody), money will be saved. How about we get out of Afghanistan and use the money we save there? And if it has to cost money…fine. You don’t have anything, if you don’t have your health.
And enlighten me, what does the right want to do about health-care, other than tort reform?
If they are just a small minority it shouldn’t really stop the holdout Dems from doing anything, now should it. Not if it’s just a few people on the fringe, no matter how vocal.
As for the rest, what a myopic way of thinking. Using the money we spend in Afghanistan?! I have heard liberals spend money from Iraq and Afghanistan 10 times over for other things. So basically what you are proposing is PERMANENT spending on the level of war time spending, while discounting any value of being in Afghanistan. Okay, say you immediately pull out of Aghanistan and use all that money year in and year out forever and in a few years the Taliban or Al Quaeda have built up resources there or God forbid have become successful in another attack. Do you go back then? Now you are spending double!
You say if it has to cost money, then fine. I will ask you, HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY IN TAXES? Come on, how high are you willing to go? Because at some point I am going to tire of paying for my health care and someone else’s too and I am going to become the free loader. I don’t mean to imply that there aren’t real people in need out there. I think we need to provide a safety net. But I don’t want capable people going around thinking they are entitled to have government feed, clothe, and house them, because what incentive does that create?
And I do want an answer how much you think health care will cost, who you think will pay for it, and how much you are willing to pay for it. I think I pay enough in taxes already.
It wouldn’t be permanent levels of war spending, as it would be cheaper to take care of all the sick people we have here than it is to fight two wars. We’re not going to turn Afghanistan into a Western friendly democracy. It is delusional to think that. Its been 8 years. Its better than it was on Sep 10, 2001, but its not getting any better. But this is all beside the point really, back to health care.
I think health care is going to cost about 900 billion dollars over ten years. Thats what the CBO says, so that’s what I’m going on. We are all going to pay for it, and honestly, I don’t care how. A government exists to take care of its citizens. Not baby them, just make sure they are alright. If the government can pick up trash and bail out banks, it can make sure nobody dies because they don’t have good insurance.
My point was, a government program and its spending lasts forever, while in theory two wars is temporary spending.
You don’t care how we pay for it? Then I propose we take 90% of your check to help pay for it. You will undoubtedly write me back and tell me that is ridiculous or unfair. Then you tell me, how much are you willing to pay for this and all of the other government programs that you support? 50%? Half of every thing you make sent away to the government? Preposterous!
I agree. A government exists to take care of its citizens — for things they cannot do themselves. There are other ways to reform health costs then for government to pick up the tab. Making it like auto insurance would go a long way to reducing costs. I don’t make my insurance pick up an oil change, why should it pick up a routine exam? If I was responsible for some costs, I would make transparency of costs a priority. When I shop around, prices become competitive. Make it like the airlines with priceline. I don’t necessarily choose cheap-o airlines, because I might want a Midwest cookie. But that’s my choice. Right now no one knows (or cares) how much these procedures cost.
How many people do you know that balk at paying ANYTHING for health care have no problem spending tons of money out at bars, or restaurants, cell phone package, cable tv, cars they can’t afford. They already have an expectation someone else will pick up the health tab, whether that be an insurance company or the government.
So please tell me what is the maximum you or anyone should send from his check away to the government?
Z dubbya,if you would have looked at his voting record you would have known nothing bold was comming out of the Obambler.I bet he wants to vote presant,wait he can’t do that no more.
ray, I’ve heard the “voting present” talking point before. Please update your talking points list accordingly.
Just because you’ve heard it before, doesn’t mean it’s not true. Just wondering why you expected bold things when you had nothing to base that on except a nice speech or two? The boldest thing he did was decide to run for president after serving only 3 years in the Senate. Woops, there goes another talking point.
I too wish Obama would show some bold action — on helping to heat up the economy by making America more attactive to business (lower corporate tax rate), lowering taxes, easing burdens government puts on us all, putting a priority on our wars (maybe calling a general now and then), supporting the dollar, standing up to thugs on the world stage.
Instead his priorities are more government regulation (cap and trade), a massive new spending program (health care), which followed the first massive new spending program (stimulus), selling a few foreign cars, going on talk shows, making speeches, having a beer and playing mediator for no reason, giving a speech to school kids, more talk shows, and hangin with Oprah while failing to bring home the Olympics.
If Obama just gets rid of all the taxes, as it seems you want, how are we going to afford putting a priority on wars, or standing up to thugs?
And didn’t Bush initiate the modern economic stimulus and TARP’s?
I did not say eliminate taxes altogether, but certainly do not raise them. I did not see the sincere effort that he promised in the campaign to evaluate government top to bottom and cut wasteful spending. The priority should be on national security, if that means at the expense of some other programs. For as you have said, a government exists to take care of its citizens. What good is picking up the trash if people are dying at the hands of terrorists.
Ok, so Bush initiated a stimulus package. Did that mean Obama had to continue that path (earmarks included)? He didn’t follow Bush’s stance on anything else! And just because Bush did it, doesn’t make it right. Bush initiated an expensive prescription drug program too. That doesn’t mean I supported it.