Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat View Post
If Obama pulls it off at last, I'd never vote for another politician ever again.

It takes tremendous courage and political strength to reform what is - owing to its double status as the world's most costly and simultaneously most useless healthcare system - this world's most profitable organised plunder of ordinary citizens. In so doing, America will no longer be the one single developed nation without universal healthcare. What's more, Americans will regain what was once thought the American way: Obama will return power to the people, their financial and physical wellbeing taking preference over organised plunder of them again.
You and I have different opinions as to the efficacy of this approach to healthcare.

Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Edit:
Sorry, not trying to be dense here or sway the debate by post three to a discussion about the actual merits of Obama's healthcare reform plan.

In the above scheme, it becomes obvious why Obama would make healthcare a break-or-make issue of his presidency.

If one considers it an exercise in Marxism, against the grassroots opposition of ordinary Americans, at the possible price of a single-term presidency, then yes, one must wonder why Obama would persevere. Rational souls not easily swayed to conspiracist thinking, will arrive at the conclusion that Obama must actually believe in what he's trying to achieve. Which then, perhaps grudgingly admitted, would be telling of courage.
I did not say he was a marxist, though that IS the epithet with which Obama is being tarred and featherd by the radio right. I believe he's a Social Democrat in the Eurpoean tradition (watered-down socialism, heavy emphasis on unions to really represent the working class, marginalize religion as counter-productive, increase taxation to pay for broad social entitlements, cut defense spending (and never deploy troops for more than 30 days save in UN authorized peace-keeping efforts, central government has most of the authority -- yes, I know I'm broad-brushing here).

It is also a fact that most of the proposed budget shortfalls engendered by this bill over the next ten years could be offset -- and then some -- by doubling the budget for homeland security and reducing the expenditure on the military and military operations from 4.06% of our GDP to 2.6% France maintains. Even at that level, we would be spending more on defense then all of the G8 (aside from China) combined.

This is, I believe, also part of the objective. With national healthcare the new norm, it becomes almost impossible, politically, for anyone to do more than trim around the edges of the program. This will, eventually, necessitate cutting spending elsewhere. The only realy possibility for a meaningful realignment of funds in the US budget is a sharp reduction in DOD spending. This will, in turn, MANDATE a more collegial and less combat-oriented approach to foreign policy across the board. This too, I believe, is one of the objectives. Yes, I do believe he is courageous enough to pursue these macro goals despite the political ass-whupping the Dems may well receive in the short run. I am, in addition, awed by his leadership....he's getting a lot of Dems to go along with this goal even though they can see a personal precipice between them and the "radiant future."