Barack Obama, Person of the Year

Time Magazine has proclaimed Barack Obama as the Person of the Year for 2012.  Here, according to the magazine, is his significance for American culture:

There has been much talk of the coalition of the ascendant — young people, minorities, Hispanics, college-educated women — and in winning re-election, Obama showed that these fast-growing groups are not only the future but also the present. About 40% of millennials — the largest generational cohort in U.S. history, bigger even than the baby boomers — are nonwhite. If his win in 2008 was extraordinary, then 2012 is confirmation that demographic change is here to stay.. . .

 

Obama is the first Democratic President since FDR to win more than 50% of the vote in consecutive elections and the first President since 1940 to win re-election with an unemployment rate north of 7.5%. He has stitched together a winning coalition and perhaps a governing one as well. His presidency spells the end of the Reagan realignment that had defined American politics for 30 years. We are in the midst of historic cultural and demographic changes, and Obama is both the symbol and in some ways the architect of this new America. “The truth is,” the President said in the Oval Office, “that we have steadily become a more diverse and tolerant country that embraces people’s differences and respects people who are not like us. That’s a profoundly good thing. That’s one of the strengths of America.” . . .

For finding and forging a new majority, for turning weakness into opportunity and for seeking, amid great adversity, to create a more perfect union, Barack Obama is TIME’s 2012 Person of the Year.

via The Choice | TIME.com.

The Reagan era is over.  We are now in the Obama era.

Whether you like it or not, isn’t this true?  Are these encomiums valid?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Sarah Degner Riveros

    I am disappointed in President Obama’s stance on abortion. I am frustrated by his lack of action so far to promote the rights of recent immigrants to the US and to create a path to citizenship. When it is said that he promotes diversity, these two vulnerable groups of people who are loved and mentioned by God in His Word, the unborn and the “stranger / sojourner” immigrant. The rights of all people must be defended and protected—especially the rights of the poor, the vulnerable, and those whom we may view as “different” from ourselves.

  • Sarah Degner Riveros

    I am disappointed in President Obama’s stance on abortion. I am frustrated by his lack of action so far to promote the rights of recent immigrants to the US and to create a path to citizenship. When it is said that he promotes diversity, these two vulnerable groups of people who are loved and mentioned by God in His Word, the unborn and the “stranger / sojourner” immigrant. The rights of all people must be defended and protected—especially the rights of the poor, the vulnerable, and those whom we may view as “different” from ourselves.

  • Sarah Degner Riveros

    I am disappointed in President Obama’s stance on abortion. I am frustrated by his lack of action so far to promote the rights of recent immigrants to the US and to create a patho to citizenship. When it is said that he promotes diversity, these two vulnerable groups of people who are loved and mentioned by God in His Word, the unborn and the “stranger / sojourner” immigrant. The rights of all people must be defended and protected—especially the rights of the poor, the vulnerable, and those whom we may view as “different” from ourselves.

  • Sarah Degner Riveros

    I am disappointed in President Obama’s stance on abortion. I am frustrated by his lack of action so far to promote the rights of recent immigrants to the US and to create a patho to citizenship. When it is said that he promotes diversity, these two vulnerable groups of people who are loved and mentioned by God in His Word, the unborn and the “stranger / sojourner” immigrant. The rights of all people must be defended and protected—especially the rights of the poor, the vulnerable, and those whom we may view as “different” from ourselves.

  • SKPeterson

    It may be true that we are in the Obama Era, but I doubt it. I don’t think there was a Reagan Era either. Maybe I take too long (and often pessimistic, I admit) view, but we’re living in a Wilsonian Era, which is nothing more than the solidification of the Lincolnian Premise, held at bay by some of the not so radical Republicans and Bourbon Democrats for about 30 or 40 years. Our country has steadily lurched since its inception away from principles of basic liberty toward a more powerful central state, with occasional states of rest or regression to the Revolutionary mean. But then, succeeding generations find that having a central government allows for greater opportunities for, hmmm, shall we say “enrichment” (oddly often under the guise of “good government”.

    Reagan was barely a speed bump in slowing this centralizing process; arguably we had as much movement toward a smaller government under Clinton (the greatest Republican President since Reagan without being a Republican :) ). Since Wilson we’ve had only one or two Presidents that have made a concerted effort towards smaller government: Coolidge and Taft (maybe). Other than that is has either been status quo ante or more centralizing. Obama is part of this process; that he has made it “multicultural” is relatively meaningless in the long run.

  • SKPeterson

    It may be true that we are in the Obama Era, but I doubt it. I don’t think there was a Reagan Era either. Maybe I take too long (and often pessimistic, I admit) view, but we’re living in a Wilsonian Era, which is nothing more than the solidification of the Lincolnian Premise, held at bay by some of the not so radical Republicans and Bourbon Democrats for about 30 or 40 years. Our country has steadily lurched since its inception away from principles of basic liberty toward a more powerful central state, with occasional states of rest or regression to the Revolutionary mean. But then, succeeding generations find that having a central government allows for greater opportunities for, hmmm, shall we say “enrichment” (oddly often under the guise of “good government”.

    Reagan was barely a speed bump in slowing this centralizing process; arguably we had as much movement toward a smaller government under Clinton (the greatest Republican President since Reagan without being a Republican :) ). Since Wilson we’ve had only one or two Presidents that have made a concerted effort towards smaller government: Coolidge and Taft (maybe). Other than that is has either been status quo ante or more centralizing. Obama is part of this process; that he has made it “multicultural” is relatively meaningless in the long run.

  • larry

    SK,

    You are spot on the money. I’ve not heard very many, at least express, that realizes that. I’ve even had some liberal friends express this same concern. In short they are quite concerned that Obama and Bush pretty much the same problem, the flavor of the kool aid may be slightly different but its kool aid either way.

  • larry

    SK,

    You are spot on the money. I’ve not heard very many, at least express, that realizes that. I’ve even had some liberal friends express this same concern. In short they are quite concerned that Obama and Bush pretty much the same problem, the flavor of the kool aid may be slightly different but its kool aid either way.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Didn’t he already get this conferred on him once?

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Didn’t he already get this conferred on him once?

  • Tom Hering

    Didn’t he already get this conferred on him once?

    Yes, in 2008. If he deserved recognition for his impact then, he deserves it even more now, because it’s been proven that the 2008 election wasn’t an anomoly, and there’s a historic shift taking place in America.

  • Tom Hering

    Didn’t he already get this conferred on him once?

    Yes, in 2008. If he deserved recognition for his impact then, he deserves it even more now, because it’s been proven that the 2008 election wasn’t an anomoly, and there’s a historic shift taking place in America.

  • Steve Billingsley

    I think he certainly deserves it as his reelection was certainly not a sure thing given the state of the economy and the instability of world events (Eurozone problems, the wilting Arab Spring, etc.)

    Whether or not we are in an Obama era remains to be seen. He hasn’t even been sworn in to his second term yet and historically, second terms have all kinds of difficulties. We don’t even know if, in the big picture, his Presidency will be more significant than Bush or Clinton’s. If some sort of consensus emerges on entitlement reform that makes our fiscal future more sustainable or some foreign crisis comes to a head in a way that Obama has to make a significant choice in the direction of our foreign policy (similar to the choices Bush made after 9/11) then it could be. If, however, we continue to slog on with a sluggish economy, punting fiscal issues down the road and avoiding tough choices – then the Obama Presidency may end up being seen as a failure.

    Typically, our descendents are in much better position than we are to proclaim “eras”.

  • Steve Billingsley

    I think he certainly deserves it as his reelection was certainly not a sure thing given the state of the economy and the instability of world events (Eurozone problems, the wilting Arab Spring, etc.)

    Whether or not we are in an Obama era remains to be seen. He hasn’t even been sworn in to his second term yet and historically, second terms have all kinds of difficulties. We don’t even know if, in the big picture, his Presidency will be more significant than Bush or Clinton’s. If some sort of consensus emerges on entitlement reform that makes our fiscal future more sustainable or some foreign crisis comes to a head in a way that Obama has to make a significant choice in the direction of our foreign policy (similar to the choices Bush made after 9/11) then it could be. If, however, we continue to slog on with a sluggish economy, punting fiscal issues down the road and avoiding tough choices – then the Obama Presidency may end up being seen as a failure.

    Typically, our descendents are in much better position than we are to proclaim “eras”.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I am not sure I find getting more than 50% of a vote all that note worthy. A bear dressed as a pig could have won more votes than Romney.

    Was it such a poor year for note worthy people?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I am not sure I find getting more than 50% of a vote all that note worthy. A bear dressed as a pig could have won more votes than Romney.

    Was it such a poor year for note worthy people?

  • P.C.

    Who on this blog reads Time magazine? Very few, I predict. So the title of “Person of the Year” means little, if anything. My vote was for Tom Hering anyway.

  • P.C.

    Who on this blog reads Time magazine? Very few, I predict. So the title of “Person of the Year” means little, if anything. My vote was for Tom Hering anyway.

  • Tom Hering

    Well, gosh, thanks P.C. Oh wait. The criteria is not just an impact for the better, but also for the worse, right? :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Well, gosh, thanks P.C. Oh wait. The criteria is not just an impact for the better, but also for the worse, right? :-D

  • SKPeterson

    Tom Hering – Anti-Person of the Year 2012!

    Somehow that doesn’t sound right, but it fits. Let the Hering Era begin! Dual-threading, maybe that is the real event of significance for tomorrow – the realization that Tom is our density.

  • SKPeterson

    Tom Hering – Anti-Person of the Year 2012!

    Somehow that doesn’t sound right, but it fits. Let the Hering Era begin! Dual-threading, maybe that is the real event of significance for tomorrow – the realization that Tom is our density.

  • Joe

    SK — I agree with you. WRT to Taft, as president he was for small gov’t. (He was the anti-Teddy Roosevelt). As Chief Justice he was decidedly not. The man had a fundamental shift in his understanding of the constitutional powers of the federal gov’t. Love Taft the president, loath Taft the CJ.

  • Joe

    SK — I agree with you. WRT to Taft, as president he was for small gov’t. (He was the anti-Teddy Roosevelt). As Chief Justice he was decidedly not. The man had a fundamental shift in his understanding of the constitutional powers of the federal gov’t. Love Taft the president, loath Taft the CJ.

  • DonS

    Obama deserved it in 2008, the jury’s out in 2012. Presidents win re-election more often than not and the great reform of his first term, Obamacare, has not yet been implemented and appears to be in serious trouble. It’s not a bad or frivolous choice, but I’m not sure he has been so transcendent as to warrant selection just for winning an election. But we shall see. I think Morsi of Egypt would have been a better, less fawning, and more imaginative choice.

  • DonS

    Obama deserved it in 2008, the jury’s out in 2012. Presidents win re-election more often than not and the great reform of his first term, Obamacare, has not yet been implemented and appears to be in serious trouble. It’s not a bad or frivolous choice, but I’m not sure he has been so transcendent as to warrant selection just for winning an election. But we shall see. I think Morsi of Egypt would have been a better, less fawning, and more imaginative choice.

  • SAL

    The Person of the Year is usually USA-centric given that’s where Time is produced. Every President has been a Person of the Year in the last few decades.

    However I think it’s easy to argue the USA was not very influential on the world stage. We seem to be either irrelevant or second string actors in most consequential developments of this year.

    I’d suggest the Person of the Year should have been between these three:

    Mario Draghi
    Hu Jintao
    Angela Merkel

  • SAL

    The Person of the Year is usually USA-centric given that’s where Time is produced. Every President has been a Person of the Year in the last few decades.

    However I think it’s easy to argue the USA was not very influential on the world stage. We seem to be either irrelevant or second string actors in most consequential developments of this year.

    I’d suggest the Person of the Year should have been between these three:

    Mario Draghi
    Hu Jintao
    Angela Merkel

  • DonS

    If you need USA-centric, then I would argue Chris Stevens

  • DonS

    If you need USA-centric, then I would argue Chris Stevens

  • http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin

    Despite all odds, our President prevailed in gaining re-election. He still has an uphill battle fighting a Red House which has blocked his every move in an attempt to squash his goals of bringing the Middle Class equal pay, women’s rights, gay rights and affordable healthcare. The Bush Administration drove our economy into a swift nose dive and Obama is still the patsy. Watch conservative hands paint him in Blackface with a visual commentary of how Barack has been bamboozled at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/10/bamboozling-obama.html

  • http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin

    Despite all odds, our President prevailed in gaining re-election. He still has an uphill battle fighting a Red House which has blocked his every move in an attempt to squash his goals of bringing the Middle Class equal pay, women’s rights, gay rights and affordable healthcare. The Bush Administration drove our economy into a swift nose dive and Obama is still the patsy. Watch conservative hands paint him in Blackface with a visual commentary of how Barack has been bamboozled at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/10/bamboozling-obama.html

  • DonS

    Brandt @ 16: “Despite all odds” — wasn’t he pretty much the favorite, according to oddsmakers, during the entire campaign? I don’t think InTrade ever had Romney at even money or above.

    He still has an uphill battle fighting a Red House which has blocked his every move in an attempt to squash his goals of bringing the Middle Class equal pay, women’s rights, gay rights and affordable healthcare.

    Hmm. What “move” has the “Red House” blocked regarding “Middle Class equal pay”, “Women’s rights”, “gay rights”, or “affordable healthcare”? Be specific. I’m not aware that he has proposed any legislation regarding “middle class equal pay”, or “women’s rights”, or “gay rights” since the Republicans took the House in 2010, and little in those fields prior to then. He got Obamacare, which is hardly affordable. We were “bamboozled” on that one, and Bush has been the patsy since Day 1 in Obama’s world.

  • DonS

    Brandt @ 16: “Despite all odds” — wasn’t he pretty much the favorite, according to oddsmakers, during the entire campaign? I don’t think InTrade ever had Romney at even money or above.

    He still has an uphill battle fighting a Red House which has blocked his every move in an attempt to squash his goals of bringing the Middle Class equal pay, women’s rights, gay rights and affordable healthcare.

    Hmm. What “move” has the “Red House” blocked regarding “Middle Class equal pay”, “Women’s rights”, “gay rights”, or “affordable healthcare”? Be specific. I’m not aware that he has proposed any legislation regarding “middle class equal pay”, or “women’s rights”, or “gay rights” since the Republicans took the House in 2010, and little in those fields prior to then. He got Obamacare, which is hardly affordable. We were “bamboozled” on that one, and Bush has been the patsy since Day 1 in Obama’s world.

  • SKPeterson

    Brandt @ 16 – Despite all odds? He was the odds on favorite from the get go. The Republicans assured his victory when they chose Romney. That Obama still almost lost is a testament more to the almost ingrained ineptitude of the Republican powers-that-be than to any sort of broad, incoherent appeal to the Middle Class you ascribe to the President. The Middle Class is really all for those things? All the time? Everywhere? Gay rights? Equal pay? For who? For what?

    As to the Bush Administration driving the economy into the toilet and leaving Obama to pick up the pieces, I would argue that the economy has been going down the drain for several decades. Bush II did it no favors. However, I would actually date the broad decline in the economy to the Nixon Administration, although a credible argument could be made for the Johnson regime. The Reagan “era” was a two-year aberration, reversed by Bush I with Clinton actually reverting slightly to the Reagan stasis. Bush II inherited the stasis but the long-term downward trend reasserted itself and then accelerated the downturn in tandem with a Blue House, with the corporate and bankster bailouts. Obama has somehow managed to exponentially increase the slide while protecting all the usual crony suspects; all the while his healthcare act’s fullblown ramifications have yet to weight down the economy, but they’re coming and we’re likely going to find out that they’re entirely unworkable or so expensive as to eviscerate any possible potential for growth in the U.S. here on out. Obama’s current policies are a large part of the reason that many economic forecasters are forecasting no to very low (i.e. 0 to ~1%) growth in our economy through the rest of the decade and possibly until 2030. If Obama succeeds we’ll have the economic vitality of France with it’s 26% unemployment rate, confiscatory rates of taxation, and a “free” healthcare system that manages to bleed red ink and still doesn’t serve a large swath of the population because they can’t afford it. Both Bush and Obama have proven that they are economically clueless idiots aided and abetted by a Federal Reserve that is almost literally criminally irresponsible compounded by a willfully ignorant Congress and a bureaucracy peopled by petty want-to-be tyrants. Obama doesn’t need to be painted a patsy. He is a patsy, who has followed a patsy, who followed the patsy before him and so on.

    So, yeah, basically I’m saying you’re faith in Mr. Obama is misplaced, even if it is admirable given a certain willing naivete. Quaint even. Realistic? Not even in the same galaxy as the proverbial ball park. Oh, and the Red House? They’re somewhere wandering around in the same galaxy with their Blue counterparts and Mr. Obama. If you see them, let them know that they can stop pretending they’ve got any reasonable chance of doing anything remotely sensible for the American people. We’re better off alone.

  • SKPeterson

    Brandt @ 16 – Despite all odds? He was the odds on favorite from the get go. The Republicans assured his victory when they chose Romney. That Obama still almost lost is a testament more to the almost ingrained ineptitude of the Republican powers-that-be than to any sort of broad, incoherent appeal to the Middle Class you ascribe to the President. The Middle Class is really all for those things? All the time? Everywhere? Gay rights? Equal pay? For who? For what?

    As to the Bush Administration driving the economy into the toilet and leaving Obama to pick up the pieces, I would argue that the economy has been going down the drain for several decades. Bush II did it no favors. However, I would actually date the broad decline in the economy to the Nixon Administration, although a credible argument could be made for the Johnson regime. The Reagan “era” was a two-year aberration, reversed by Bush I with Clinton actually reverting slightly to the Reagan stasis. Bush II inherited the stasis but the long-term downward trend reasserted itself and then accelerated the downturn in tandem with a Blue House, with the corporate and bankster bailouts. Obama has somehow managed to exponentially increase the slide while protecting all the usual crony suspects; all the while his healthcare act’s fullblown ramifications have yet to weight down the economy, but they’re coming and we’re likely going to find out that they’re entirely unworkable or so expensive as to eviscerate any possible potential for growth in the U.S. here on out. Obama’s current policies are a large part of the reason that many economic forecasters are forecasting no to very low (i.e. 0 to ~1%) growth in our economy through the rest of the decade and possibly until 2030. If Obama succeeds we’ll have the economic vitality of France with it’s 26% unemployment rate, confiscatory rates of taxation, and a “free” healthcare system that manages to bleed red ink and still doesn’t serve a large swath of the population because they can’t afford it. Both Bush and Obama have proven that they are economically clueless idiots aided and abetted by a Federal Reserve that is almost literally criminally irresponsible compounded by a willfully ignorant Congress and a bureaucracy peopled by petty want-to-be tyrants. Obama doesn’t need to be painted a patsy. He is a patsy, who has followed a patsy, who followed the patsy before him and so on.

    So, yeah, basically I’m saying you’re faith in Mr. Obama is misplaced, even if it is admirable given a certain willing naivete. Quaint even. Realistic? Not even in the same galaxy as the proverbial ball park. Oh, and the Red House? They’re somewhere wandering around in the same galaxy with their Blue counterparts and Mr. Obama. If you see them, let them know that they can stop pretending they’ve got any reasonable chance of doing anything remotely sensible for the American people. We’re better off alone.

  • SKPeterson

    Brandt @ 16 – Your painting (is it a painting or chalk?) is interesting. I’m not sure I quite understand the blackface. Are you saying that pundits/pols on the right will attempt to use racist demagoguery to discredit Obama? Maybe, but I doubt it.

    If so, then you fall into the ditch on the other side, where any criticism of Obama’s policies is not based upon legitimate disagreements on the wisdom or workability or propriety of any of his policy prescriptions, but that any and all criticism is, ipso facto, racist. That feeds right into the whole atmosphere of fear that politicians on both sides continually use and you rightly (if haphazardly) condemn in your blogpost on the artwork.

    One other thing though. You’re painting gets a little too close to comfort to the hagiographic propaganda artwork put forward by the socialists of the right, http://media.brainz.org/uploads/2010/12/nazi_poster.jpg, or the socialists of the left, http://chineseposters.net/images/e13-644.jpg . Don’t be a cultist. Unless maybe you want to do this guy: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vigilance-2-2.jpg.

  • SKPeterson

    Brandt @ 16 – Your painting (is it a painting or chalk?) is interesting. I’m not sure I quite understand the blackface. Are you saying that pundits/pols on the right will attempt to use racist demagoguery to discredit Obama? Maybe, but I doubt it.

    If so, then you fall into the ditch on the other side, where any criticism of Obama’s policies is not based upon legitimate disagreements on the wisdom or workability or propriety of any of his policy prescriptions, but that any and all criticism is, ipso facto, racist. That feeds right into the whole atmosphere of fear that politicians on both sides continually use and you rightly (if haphazardly) condemn in your blogpost on the artwork.

    One other thing though. You’re painting gets a little too close to comfort to the hagiographic propaganda artwork put forward by the socialists of the right, http://media.brainz.org/uploads/2010/12/nazi_poster.jpg, or the socialists of the left, http://chineseposters.net/images/e13-644.jpg . Don’t be a cultist. Unless maybe you want to do this guy: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vigilance-2-2.jpg.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@6:

    Wat?

    Some overeager political scientists thought that some kind of secular partisan realignment happened or began in 2008, but 2010 immediately dispelled such enthusiasm. So did 2012: Republicans still hold Congress and most states.

    Again, wat? What is the nature of this historical realignment you reference, because I’m not seeing it.

    Love him or hate him, Obama is a rather uncreative choice for 2012. He didn’t do anything terribly important this year except win reelection, which is something quite a lot of Presidents have done without being lauded as PotA. Not that there are all that many other compelling candidates from 2012…

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@6:

    Wat?

    Some overeager political scientists thought that some kind of secular partisan realignment happened or began in 2008, but 2010 immediately dispelled such enthusiasm. So did 2012: Republicans still hold Congress and most states.

    Again, wat? What is the nature of this historical realignment you reference, because I’m not seeing it.

    Love him or hate him, Obama is a rather uncreative choice for 2012. He didn’t do anything terribly important this year except win reelection, which is something quite a lot of Presidents have done without being lauded as PotA. Not that there are all that many other compelling candidates from 2012…

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus, I’m shocked to hear you pooh-pooh the President, and surprised that you would see things differently than other political analysts. Really I am.

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus, I’m shocked to hear you pooh-pooh the President, and surprised that you would see things differently than other political analysts. Really I am.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom Hering,

    1) My views on our current President are irrelevant. The Time PotA is supposed to have been the most significant or important person (in the world) in the past year, not the best or most appealing. Both Hitler and Stalin were rightly regarded as persons of the year at various points due to their world-historic actions.

    2) Other political analysts? That’s just the thing, Tom. Which credible political analysts/scientists are claiming that 2012 represented a realigning election? Certainly no political scientists that I know of. The consensus seems to be that 2008 was not a realignment, and 2012 merely maintained the status quo. What am I missing? Honest question.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom Hering,

    1) My views on our current President are irrelevant. The Time PotA is supposed to have been the most significant or important person (in the world) in the past year, not the best or most appealing. Both Hitler and Stalin were rightly regarded as persons of the year at various points due to their world-historic actions.

    2) Other political analysts? That’s just the thing, Tom. Which credible political analysts/scientists are claiming that 2012 represented a realigning election? Certainly no political scientists that I know of. The consensus seems to be that 2008 was not a realignment, and 2012 merely maintained the status quo. What am I missing? Honest question.

  • Cincinnatus

    And another honest question, while we’re at it: what did Obama do in 2012 that qualifies him for this recognition (not award) other than serve a rather mediocre year in his term and defeat a rather mediocre competitor in the general election by a rather mediocre margin? What am I missing? His recognition in 2008 absolutely made sense, but 2012?

  • Cincinnatus

    And another honest question, while we’re at it: what did Obama do in 2012 that qualifies him for this recognition (not award) other than serve a rather mediocre year in his term and defeat a rather mediocre competitor in the general election by a rather mediocre margin? What am I missing? His recognition in 2008 absolutely made sense, but 2012?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Reagan was barely a speed bump in slowing this centralizing process”

    Slowing? What?

    He granted amnesty to illegals and set off a baby boom among them and tons of chain migration all of it leading directly to more voters who don’t believe in the principles of basic liberty and the other founding ideals of the USA. At least Obama’s health care act will have the power to ration care to the point that only those who can pay up front are going to get what they want, rather than our current system that puts non working retired folks in line ahead of children and workers. That sounds more like basic liberty than Reagan’s health care act. At least Obama and the Democrats discussed how to pay for it even if the discussion were disingenuous and farcical. Reagan’s plan just forced private businesses to give away their services without compensation. Well, technically they send a bill, but it doesn’t get paid so…. Where is basic liberty for the hospitals? More like involuntary servitude. When did the health care industry become helots? Of course hospitals and doctors are going to do knee replacements for seniors who are 80 so they can continue to sit and watch TV all day because Medicare will give them at least some $$ whereas a young uninsured guy who needs it, and they are forced to treat but doesn’t pay gets them $0. In order to provide mandated free care, they have to have some cash flow. Terminal 8o year old cancer patients in a coma can get physical therapy the last two weeks of their lives. Why? because Medicaid will pay. Anyway, as much as Obama seems to dislike the British, he seems keen to replicate their healthcare system later if not sooner. The British system only costs about half what ours does. That is due to not giving people what they want. If they want to pay, they can go outside the system.

    http://www.salon.com/2012/07/05/reagans_healthcare_mandate/

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Reagan was barely a speed bump in slowing this centralizing process”

    Slowing? What?

    He granted amnesty to illegals and set off a baby boom among them and tons of chain migration all of it leading directly to more voters who don’t believe in the principles of basic liberty and the other founding ideals of the USA. At least Obama’s health care act will have the power to ration care to the point that only those who can pay up front are going to get what they want, rather than our current system that puts non working retired folks in line ahead of children and workers. That sounds more like basic liberty than Reagan’s health care act. At least Obama and the Democrats discussed how to pay for it even if the discussion were disingenuous and farcical. Reagan’s plan just forced private businesses to give away their services without compensation. Well, technically they send a bill, but it doesn’t get paid so…. Where is basic liberty for the hospitals? More like involuntary servitude. When did the health care industry become helots? Of course hospitals and doctors are going to do knee replacements for seniors who are 80 so they can continue to sit and watch TV all day because Medicare will give them at least some $$ whereas a young uninsured guy who needs it, and they are forced to treat but doesn’t pay gets them $0. In order to provide mandated free care, they have to have some cash flow. Terminal 8o year old cancer patients in a coma can get physical therapy the last two weeks of their lives. Why? because Medicaid will pay. Anyway, as much as Obama seems to dislike the British, he seems keen to replicate their healthcare system later if not sooner. The British system only costs about half what ours does. That is due to not giving people what they want. If they want to pay, they can go outside the system.

    http://www.salon.com/2012/07/05/reagans_healthcare_mandate/


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X