# Obama's Candidacy

by Pythagorean
Tags: candidacy, obama
P: 771
 Quote by Angry Citizen It accomplishes something. It provides a greater mandate to the party you vote for. That is taken into consideration - unless you're 2009 Obama, apparently. *still slightly bitter* As for third-party candidates, a +1 to them is the epitome of uselessness. No third party will ever rise in this system.
I disagree about the mandate thing, particularly when if Obama wins, he can't run for reelection again. He'll just do what he wants to do regardless of how many people voted for him. Even then, I don't think mandates mean anything. Just look at Bush... he barely won his first election, and lost in the popular vote, but he still crammed a voluntary, unpopular war down our throats.

I think democrats are spineless and I disagree with some of their spending habits. I think republicans fascist control freaks, but I agree with the general idea of cutting spending in some areas. If you claim there is a mandate for the winning party, I claim there is a mandate for "none of the above."
P: 1,123
 Quote by Jack21222 I disagree about the mandate thing, particularly when if Obama wins, he can't run for reelection again. He'll just do what he wants to do regardless of how many people voted for him. Even then, I don't think mandates mean anything. Just look at Bush... he barely won his first election, and lost in the popular vote, but he still crammed a voluntary, unpopular war down our throats. I think democrats are spineless and I disagree with some of their spending habits. I think republicans fascist control freaks, but I agree with the general idea of cutting spending in some areas. If you claim there is a mandate for the winning party, I claim there is a mandate for "none of the above."
I think President Obama will need to have control of both the House and Senate (as he did in the first 2 years with Pelosi and Reid) to just do what he wants. The 2010 results would have to be completely reversed to conclude a mandate - IMO.
P: 18
 Quote by Angry Citizen Y'know, I hate it when people try to pull a fast one on someone like me. This is not the least bit true, and I have documentation to prove it. Medicare and Medicaid account for about 36% of all health dollars spent in the US, and given that they service the most needy people (poor and unhealthy people, and old/disabled people), this number is a great example of how socialized programs work better.
I'd say it's an example of how unworkable they are, because their costs have been increasing exponentially. At some point, rationing is going to be implemented into Medicare (beyond what it already is) because the government won't be able to handle the very high costs. The UK, Norway, Canada, and Sweden all have both had to deal with rationing due to excessive healthcare costs in their single-payer systems (LINK), with Sweden partially privatizing theirs.

 Quote by Angry Citizen Despite the wide gaps, higher spending on health care does not necessarily prolong lives. In 2000, theUnited States spent more on health care than any other country in the world: an average of $4,500 per person. Switzerland was second highest, at$3,300 or 71% of the US.
Switzerland has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so I don't know if spending a lot of money on healthcare is a bad sign. The U.S. spends more per capita on public education than most everyone as well, and that is a socialist system, so I doubt nationalizing the healthcare system would make things become cheaper.

 Nevertheless, average US life expectancy ranks 27th in the world, at 77 years. Many countries achieve higher life expectancy rates with significantly lower spending. The chart below shows the top 30 countries in the world ranked by life expectancy. The red line indicates per-capita health expenditure (right axis), and shows that many countries outperform the US with approximately half the spending.
That's because the life expectancy calculation doesn't correct for car accidents and homicides. A LOT of Americans die each year from car accidents and homicides. If you remove those two variables from the life expectancy calculation, you get a much better result. Two economists in 2006, Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider, performed a study in which they did just this and found that when corrected, the U.S. life expectancy jumps to number one. Their method has been criticized, and the authors said that they aren't sure of the exact numbers, but that they wanted to point out how the statistic can jump around depending on how it is calculated (and if one is going to use life expectancy as a way to compare the quality of healthcare systems, things like car accidents and murders need to be accounted for in computing it): LINK1 LINK2

The U.S. also ranks very high in cancer survival rates, whereas the UK lags behind the advanced countries in this (LINK). Other countries such as Norway and Sweden rank fairly well in cancer survival rates, so I mean while not always meaning bad treatment, socialized medicine doesn't guarantee great quality treatment nor does a more privatized system like the U.S. has mean lack of it.
P: 669
 Quote by CAC1001 I'd say it's an example of how unworkable they are, because their costs have been increasing exponentially. At some point, rationing is going to be implemented into Medicare (beyond what it already is) because the government won't be able to handle the very high costs. The UK, Norway, Canada, and Sweden all have both had to deal with rationing due to excessive healthcare costs in their single-payer systems (LINK), with Sweden partially privatizing theirs.
Medicare costs have been growing significantly less slowly than private spending on healthcare. IF medicare growth is unsustainable, private spending growth is MORE unsustainable- if your argument suggests there is no workable health-care sector than it probably need revising.

Norway, and Sweden have generally comparable outcomes to us, and spend much less per capita overall on healthcare- no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer. We may reduce quality of care (you can at least argue that).

Also, rationing is a non-issue. Much US care is already rationed by the insurance plans your job offers.
P: 18
 Quote by ParticleGrl Medicare costs have been growing significantly less slowly than private spending on healthcare. IF medicare growth is unsustainable, private spending growth is MORE unsustainable- if your argument suggests there is no workable health-care sector than it probably need revising.
Private sector healthcare is private-sector, but it isn't really free-market, and without the free-market component, private-sector isn't necessarilly better.

 Norway, and Sweden have generally comparable outcomes to us, and spend much less per capita overall on healthcare- no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer. We may reduce quality of care (you can at least argue that).
I think one could doubt whether we would spend less money with single-payer. Look at public education. We spend more per pupil what other countries spend (on average) and yet it is a socialist system. Or it could be as you say where spending would decline, but so would quality.

 Also, rationing is a non-issue. Much US care is already rationed by the insurance plans your job offers.
All things are rationed, I am referring to care being rationed via governmental fiat than by the price system (although we probably have bureaucratic rationing in private-sector health care to a degree as well due to the lack of interstate competition between health insurance companies).
 P: 1,414 It seems to me that the problem of adequate healthcare for a certain portion of the population is a, presumably, solvable problem that hasn't yet been solved. There seem to be plenty of facilities, beds, technology, nurses, doctors, etc. So, why is it that a certain, arguably significant, portion of the American population can't get adequate health care? Because they can't afford to pay what that costs ... right? Well, why does it cost so much? Does it need to cost as much as it does? Is the cost of healthcare inordinately inflated? Is there a way to make preventative healthcare affordable to everybody in America? I don't know. I'm asking. Apparently Obamacare doesn't solve the problem. Why not? Is it any sort of an improvement? Why, or why not?
P: 1,123
 Quote by ParticleGrl Medicare costs have been growing significantly less slowly than private spending on healthcare. IF medicare growth is unsustainable, private spending growth is MORE unsustainable- if your argument suggests there is no workable health-care sector than it probably need revising.
I'm still not certain what any of this has to do with the topic Obama's Candidacy?

Perhaps we should restrict the healthcare debate to PPACA specifics vs Candidate and President Obama promises?

In the first two years of President Obama's term, the PPACA was the priority of the Democrat Team consisting of President Obama, House Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid. This is the legislation they passed - didn't they promise it would fix health care, create jobs, and reduce deficits.

If I recall, passing this 2,000 page Bill was so important there wasn't any time for Congress to read the final draft before voting - even though full implementation won't happen until 2014.
 P: 10 After reading this entire thread...how can you wonder why we are prepping?
 PF Gold P: 7,367 Remember that Obama can do a few things in his administrative capacity, but he cannot legislate. The GOP in Congress is doing their level best to stop every initiative that he supports, and he's getting precious little support from some in his own party. When Mitch McConnell says that his #1 priority is getting rid of Obama (not creating jobs or helping to fix the economic mess we're in), take him at his word.
 Mentor P: 22,007 Clearly, those are both the same goal!
P: 1,123
 Quote by turbo Remember that Obama can do a few things in his administrative capacity, but he cannot legislate. The GOP in Congress is doing their level best to stop every initiative that he supports, and he's getting precious little support from some in his own party. When Mitch McConnell says that his #1 priority is getting rid of Obama (not creating jobs or helping to fix the economic mess we're in), take him at his word.
When the President could pass anything he wanted - he got the PPACA pushed through without anyone reading the final draft - why not focus on what he has done - promises made, promises kept, and promises broken? If you want to discuss the GOP in Congress - start a thread - please.
PF Gold
P: 3,021
 Quote by ParticleGrl ... on healthcare- no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer.
I'm not so sure.

 Engineering Sci Advisor HW Helper Thanks P: 6,384 That's a pretty chart, but it doesn't show one interesting fact: even after 10 years of an incompetent UK administration throwing money at public services in a blatant and cynical attempt to buy votes (IMO) the current UK expenditure of 8% GDP compares with about 16% GDP in the US (source: wikipedia). Of course you are entitled to claim the US health service is "twice as good" as the UK - for those people who have access to it, of course.
PF Gold
P: 3,021
 Quote by AlephZero That's a pretty chart, but it doesn't show one interesting fact: even after 10 years of an incompetent UK administration throwing money at public services in a blatant and cynical attempt to buy votes (IMO) the current UK expenditure of 8% GDP compares with about 16% GDP in the US (source: wikipedia). Of course you are entitled to claim the US health service is "twice as good" as the UK - for those people who have access to it, of course.
I did not intend to do yet another US vs UK health comparison. US health care has its problems, namely that it is too expensive as you suggest. Ok? I did want to back up the earlier claim that government run/single payer healthcare, which Obama said he wanted, is somehow a silver bullet for cost control. Edit: I should have just posted US Medicare/Medicaid spending vs time, which is existing single payer health care in the US. Its spending has also exploded.
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 11,154
 Quote by mheslep I'm not so sure.
It's likely not possible to say much about the NHS just from those plots (even more so, due to the range of years chosen). I suspect it would require a much more careful analysis that accounts for other significant influences. In fact, one could just as easily argue a nearly opposite point (i.e., that the NHS helped mitigate growing healthcare costs), by noting that while Healthcare spending (as a fraction of GDP) rose by over an order of magnitude in the 60 yr period from 1890 to 1950, it hardly even tripled in the subsequent 60 year period.
PF Gold
P: 3,021
 Quote by Gokul43201 It's likely not possible to say much about the NHS just from those plots (even more so, due to the range of years chosen). ...
Sure I grant one can argue either way that government run/single payer healthcare might lower or raise costs. But from the UK record we can reject argument-is-over statements like "no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer."
 P: 1,123 Again, President Obama gave us the PPACA - we should focus on his promises - kept and broken - regarding lower costs, expanded coverage, jobs creation, plan choice, deficit reduction, etc. We should also be discussing the expansion of Medicaid under President Obama.
P: 1,414
 Quote by WhoWee Again, President Obama gave us the PPACA - we should focus on his promises - kept and broken - regarding lower costs, expanded coverage, jobs creation, plan choice, deficit reduction, etc. We should also be discussing the expansion of Medicaid under President Obama.
I agree in that I think that Obamacare doesn't really address the root problem, which, imo, is the inordinate inflation of healthcare costs. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that the Obama administration hasn't really done anything to effectively address any of the important problems that America and Americans are confronted with. He's a bust. A total disappointment, imho. But I also think that a GOP president would be even worse, if that's possible.

 Related Discussions Current Events 578 Current Events 492 Current Events 47 Current Events 23