I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out the causes of these problems but what can you do about it is the question.

The only reason that Healthcare Reform was necessary is because the legal stealing going on in the health field. A few years ago I had to run to the emergency room in excruciating pain when I got there I explained my symptoms to them and they told me that I most likely had a kidney stone. This was my first time dealing with this but I've heard of people peeing them out. So as they made me wait to be treated I went to the bathroom and pushed as hard as I could and somehow released it. Immediately the pain was gone so I told them and they let me go home. I was there for maybe two hours, if that, and all they actually did to me was tell me that I probably had a kidney stone and for that I received a $4,000 bill. Recently I was with a friend as he was transferred from one hospital to another in an ambulette, a 3 mile ride that took less than twenty minutes, his bill was $750, for a $20 cab ride. The point is that the healthcare system is out of control, the hospitals are overcharging, pharmaceutical companies are overcharging, insurance companies are dropping people when they need them most. How can you fix that, without bringing on the wrath of all the lobbyists the healthcare system employs? Maybe we shouldn't get involved and allow Americans to suffer and die without access to healthcare. Maybe we should allow healthcare to keep skyrocketing were only a privileged few can afford it and everyone else should just die. Or maybe we reform it and try to give as many people as possible access to basic healthcare, or at least try. Healthcare got out of control because it wasn't addressed sooner and the longer we waited the worst it would get that's why it was imperative that we at least began to reform it now and I thank Obama for that. So I hear what you say about wanting everyone to have free cars, homes, and even margaritas but none of these are left or death necessities, healthcare is.

It's no surprise that the two largest employers of lobbyists, the healthcare and financial industries, are also the biggest problems facing this country. With the financial industry spending $4,051,567,962 and the healthcare industry spending $3,982,424,794 from 1998-2010 ( http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=a&indexType=c ). Do you think that any politician or even the president can take those on and survive? Especially after the Supreme Court's ruling allowing any corporation or group to give UNLIMITED campaign contributions to any candidate they wish? These mega corporations control America and they don't care about America or Americans or the future of this country all they care about is next quarter's profits and our future is in their hands. Yet Obama is trying to at least make them somewhat accountable, you have to applaud him for even trying, it's much easier to just go with the flow and do as they say and reap the rewards.

I think you're not giving Obama enough credit he's very intelligent man, he didn't get all those scholarships for nothing and if we here on Gothamist can figure it out rest assured he's also figured it out. But sometimes it takes more than just intelligence you have to be shrewd, you have to know when to hold them and when to fold them and I believe he does. I think there's so much more that he'd like to do but he knows that some battles can't be won and therefore aren't worth fighting. Let's say tomorrow Obama decides to really take on these corporations and lobbyists and really tries to make some meaningful CHANGE. First, the Republicans will have a field day then the Democrats worried about the midterm elections will turn their back on him and he won't be able to do a thing. He'll be a lame duck President for the rest of his time in office while the the countries' elite go all out in a media assault, attacking him on their websites, TV stations, publications, etc., he'll be finished. So he has to play this game of give and take called politics but hopefully through it all he manages some change in a positive direction.

When you say, "All the Democrats were all butt-hurt over the direction that Bush led us down, but it's like Obama just stepped on the gas and now we love it". I don't know exactly what you mean. I was upset because Bush got us into two ill conceived wars, at least one under false pretenses, that have cost us over a trillion dollars and countless American lives. I was also upset that he allowed this banking scandal to happen, forget about when it started or which law from 20 or 30 years ago led up to it, the point is that he had eight years to listen to what economists were saying and didn't. He did nothing to prevent it from happening almost as if by design. Couldn't his brother, Neil Bush, warn him as he was one of the principal players in the Savings and Loan Scandal of the 80's? In retrospect it looks like the L&S Scandal was just a test run for the Financial Collapse of 2007. So if Obama is being forced to spend money bailing out the economy please don't blame him for it please place the blame where its warranted. Obama inherited this country in possibly the worst shape its ever been in, he's just trying to get us out of it.

In closing let me say this, big business and its money controls America and even the most well intentioned politician will soon realize that he/she is nothing more than a pawn. When a person decides to make a "change" that will benefit the 80% of Americans that only own 7% of America's wealth then the 19% that own 50.3% and the Top 1% that own 42.7% (Top 20% collectively own 93% of America http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html ) of America's financial wealth will use all their resources (ie media outlets, lobbyists, etc.) to discredit and destroy that person. It's easy to do the work of helping the rich get richer, that Top 20% will shower you with millions but try instituting "change" that benefits the voiceless 80% of Americans who only own 7% of America and don't have access to the propaganda machine, that don't own TV & radio, stations, newspapers, and can't hire lobbyists to influence politicians. Obama is a good man, sincere, decent and sympathized with America's bottom 80% but as much as he would like to "change" things for them unfortunately that Top 1% is too rich, too greedy, and won't allow it. So they go on a propaganda run and discredit Obama in anyway possible, call him names, insult him, and tarnish his reputation on their websites, on their TV & radio stations and their newspapers until the masses, that bottom 80%, the ones he was trying to help the most, hear it so much that they start believing it and turn on him.

Alright, lots of ground to cover here, but I have to be brief. Everything you said about the issues with Healthcare are absolutely right. The cost of everything is insane. But, what did Obama do by expanding healthcare coverage to 30 million more people? He basically said, "Hey, the cost of this stuff is outrageous, so, I'm going to give this outrageous costing stuff to more people." He didn't actually fix the problem...COST. Now he's just extended a failing, over-priced system to MORE Americans. This will work out eventually JUST like the mortgage crisis. When you have the government compete in private business (valuing the risk/price of insurance), they ruin the market and charge lower rates than the private businesses, run them out of businessness, eventually realize that they lost a TON of money by doing that, and the taxpayer bails them out. Net-Net we walk away having spent far more on healthcare than we would have. This is the same exact problem with Education in this country too. It's insanely expensive, getting more and more expensive, and we're not doing anything to cut cost (my idea for step 1: digitize all textbooks).

So, I fault Obama for not considering that whatsoever. This will result in higher healthcare costs over time, not lower.

And part of what you said is exactly why I hated Bush too. He involved us in a never ending pointless war, funded with massive amounts of deficit spending. He also sat idly by as Americans over-leveraged themselves, spent far beyond their sustainable means, and got themselves in a debt crisis (though he did advocate for oversight of Fannie and Freddie, which was contested by DODD AND FRANK...OUR SAVIORS!). In fact, he even empowered the American public to go out and spend! Obama's solution to frivilous individual deficit spending was to take it up a notch, and engage us in unprecedented GOVERNMENT deficit spending...touting it as a solution.

How do you fix the problem of high prices and unjustified deficit spending....with MORE deficit spending that will keep prices high?

Again, Obama is definitely smart, but his ideas about how to fix our country are totally illogical.

But, what did Obama do by expanding healthcare coverage to 30 million more people? He basically said, "Hey, the cost of this stuff is outrageous, so, I'm going to give this outrageous costing stuff to more people." He didn't actually fix the problem...COST.

Also note the government won't be competing. There is no "public option" in the legislation. The government will facilitate "exchanges" where private companies can compete. The goal of this is to... reduce cost.

As far as deficit spending, Obama recognizes that it is a problem. He just doesn't agree with the GOP view that it is our #1 problem right now. He is working towards reducing the deficit by ending the wars, reducing defense spending in general, and examining other measures.

BTW, the healthcare legislation is predicted to reduce the deficit. Financial and CO2 legislation are also predicted to reduce the deficit by small amounts.

None of what you just said impresses me as reducing costs in any way...could I be wrong? Absolutely, but the fact that you can't explain to me how this would reduce costs doesn't quell my fears. Are we advocating tort reform? Can you give me an example of anything that the government has run that has reduced costs (vs. privatized business) over time? And, yes, the CBO did say that this legislation would reduce healthcare cost over time. You know what else the government predicted regarding cost? They thought that Medicaid would cost $12 Billion by 1991, and it was $110.

Explain to me, in lehman's terms, how beaureacratic hurdles like financial and C02 legislation will reduce the $12T deficit. Cause the government will tax more? Where's the part about them spending less? Cause you can't just tax more to reduce deficits, you also have to spend less. Something Obama has no idea how to do.

I'm not a health care expert, but those who are experts think that it will reduce costs. If you want to doubt them, go right ahead. If you're expecting some tool on the internet to lay it all out for you.. well, I dunno what to say. Reams have already been written. (Note that medicare was significantly expanded in 1980. A cost estimate from 1967 is therefore irrelevant.)

You certainly can just tax more to reduce deficits. But I'm not the CBO, so I cannot explain how they arrived at their conclusion.

You demonstrate perfectly the mentality that Obama has to deal with. He does what people say they want, and then they turn around and say "that doesn't impress me". Seems like the above poster is correct.

There are plenty of healthcare experts who absolutely don't think this will reduce cost either. So, I think my skepticism is fairly justified, and let's just hope I'm totally wrong.

And, you watch, keep increasing taxes to reduce our deficits, without cutting any spending (i'm fine with these two theories working in unison), and businesses will leave. But as of right now we already spend far more than we tax, and high taxes take enough away from profitability and investment. We need to cut spending too. I'm not the CBO either, so I can't explain exactly why they're wrong...aside from the fact that they have been multiple times in the past.

You better believe Obama has to deal with my mentality. I'm one of the ones that put him in office, and I have no intention of doing it again. And more so than not "impressing me", it doesn't make any logical sense to me. I'm gonna forward that Duck Tales video so many times today.

Skepticism is one thing, but I think your attitude goes beyond skepticism. You seem to simply deny that any of the changes will work.

Because nobody seems to be able to explain, even hypothetically, how they will work. And people do a far better job of explaining how they won't. Seems like fairly justifiable grounds for skepticism if you ask me.

Again, I sincerely hope I'm totally incorrect.

Given that you've already repeated some right-wing memes, I do wonder where you're looking for your information. Take a look at some of the serious health policy blogs. Warning: you might be bored to death.

They're Libertarian memes. I'm as socially liberal as it gets, but I can't identify anymore with Democrats when it comes to fiscal policy/responsiblity. The ideas just simply don't make logical sense, and I fear they will have a detrimental long term impact on the United States dollar.

I'll check out those blogs (maybe send me one?), and maybe in the meantime, you can find me some actual doctors who think this is a good idea.

You're missing the point. There are no multiple answers to a problem that pretty much has 2 logical answers to begin with. You just don't like Obama. Admit it.

Is this a coherent sentance?: "There are no multiple answers to a problem that pretty much has 2 logical answers to begin with."

I've admitted several times that while I like Obama personally, LOVE to have a beer with the guy, I disagree with the logic behind his policies.

Politics -- the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other.

 --Oscar Ameringer 

I'm not really sure what people expected of Obama, maybe their expectations were too high?

When you vote for a president you vote for the person with your best interests at heart then hope and pray that they can steer the country in that direction when they take office. That's really the best they can do, steer the country because there's 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators all with different agendas and countless lobbyists spending billions to protect their interests. I'm pretty sure that if Obama could have written and passed the bill all by himself this would be a totally different bill but he must appease enough of these Congressmen and women to get enough votes for it to pass and with the current level of partisanship going on in America today it's a miracle he can get anything to pass.

I personally have never seen an American President be so viciously attacked and get so much done in the worst economic climate possible, and in such a short period of time. He got Healthcare reform passed, so many presidents have tried and failed but he did it. It might not have been as comprehensive as some would have like but it's better than what the health industry's lobbyists wanted which was nothing. This current Wall Street Reform Bill is also not as far reaching as most would have wanted but it sets the ball rolling in the right direction we can always amend things to it later but at least there's some protections and oversights where before there was none. Sure Obama could've kept fighting for more but then these bills never get passed and they'll just keep debating and going back and forth and nothing gets done and nothing gets passed, isn't that what we've become accustomed too, endless debates, endless bickering and no results? The lobbyists love it because nothing gets passed and they can keep billing their clients and the spineless politicians love it too because it looks like their fighting but in reality they're just stalling and getting nothing done. Obama has pretty much forced them to pass these bills even though they did their best to avoid it.

Don't get me wrong I too wish that Obama could've took over and started really kicking some ass and took control of the country but that's not realistic. Obama is a politician not a magician, he can't wave a wand and pull bunnies out of a hat. All he can do is set the tone of the debate and steer the country in the right direction and I think he's doing a terrific job of steering through very turbulent weather. One moment he's attacked for doing too much, the next for doing to little, called a socialist, called Hitler, he's the freaking anti-christ, but he keeps on trying to do what we voted for him to do, getting results maybe not as much as we would like but more than any other president in recent history within his first year and a half on the job.

Our system is broken and no one person can fix it or change it, not even Obama. The system was in place before he got there and will be in place when he leaves office. The only way it'll change is when millions begin to stand up and start demanding change until then whoever becomes president will just have to play with the cards they are dealt.

Plus what was the alternative? John McCain & Sarah Palin? Please.

+1,000,000 -

Whatever anyone says about him, I haven't experienced a time in American history when America decided to spend a little on itself for a change (healthcare, finance reform) instead of elaborate show-off purchases (pretty much every foreign policy application). If he runs in 2012 he has my vote. Hey, he's better than the last guy.

PAHAHA! You're kidding right? "I haven't experienced a time in American history when America decided to spend a little on itself for a change". What do you call Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Infrastructure Spending, Fannie, Freddie, Sallie Mae, The New Deal... I mean, there are literally hundreds of examples of how ridiculous that sounds.

My expectations for Obama were that he would be smart enough to understand the underlying theory in that Duck Tales video above, and I just really don't think he does at ALL. Do I want everyone to have free Healthcare in theory? Absolutely. In fact, I want everyone to have free everything! Cars. Homes. Margaritas (yay). Hey, I don't like working, let's just print money and have the government pay us all a salary, right!? No. Foreign governments will stop dealing with our currency eventually. Especially since we don't even make anything here anymore!

Honestly, I thought he was exactly the type of guy who could forgo staunch partisanship, break old American social norms (like being a black president), and default to a new era of logic and reason when it came to policy-making. If he used just one of his tri-weekly public addresses to just play that Duck Tales video, I honestly believe more people would GET IT, and the impact of this recession would have been shortened by years (yes I believe we have many years to go). All the Democrats were all butt-hurt over the direction that Bush led us down, but it's like Obama just stepped on the gas and now we love it.

i wonder what the tea party thinks about their darling brown voting with democrats.

YAY GOVERNMENT! GOOD GOVERNMENTING! NATURALLY, THE MAJORITY AGREED TO FIND A WAY TO COMPLETELY FORGET THE ACTUAL PROBLEM!

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

Why the fuck did I vote for Obama?