One of the major problems here is that many of the people who throw the label of socialist around don't actually understand what socialism is, and instead of making up their own minds about his position on a certain political ideology, they simply repeat tried and tested conservative rhetoric.

People forget that the society we have now is heavily influenced by socialist as well as capitalist ideology.

Here is where I have an issue with almost all the critics of Obama. Just because the guy wants to slightly increase taxes on the rich, and lower taxes on the working class, means that somehow he is devaluing hard work?

How?

Because he's making it slightly easier to climb the latter? Because he has some empathy for the people who have to work two jobs just so that they can decide whether they want to send their kids to college, pay the rent, or pay health insurance? (True story by the way, the guy chose his kids and couldn't afford insulin). If anything he's making the American dream more accessible...he's making America into exactly what we've all claimed that it is for the last 200 years.

As you said, Obama became successful, and started from almost nothing. He had to work his way up to the top, and did a great job of it. You would think that this would convince him that the system works, but he's smarter then that. He knows that for every one story like his, there are thousands of stories of people who worked equally as hard, but for some reason beyond there own control, couldn't reach the same level of success. He also knows that we can't abandon those people, or right them off as lazy or undeserving of basic human rights.

Tell me one time Obama said "you can't make it on your own" or that "government is the only answer."

What is your fear Jake? Doctors will still make more than waiters. The system is still going to be based on capitalism...but capitalism alone doesn't work. No system that puts the vast majority of the wealth in the hands of a small minority of people ever works. When people can't survive they turn to crime and violence. Look at Mexico. Look at almost all of Africa. There nations have vast natural resources, but the people are seeing none of it.

If you don't fix the disparity of wealth, then a society cannot function.

The fact that you're against universal healthcare because you want to make lots of money as a doctor is quite possibly the most selfish thing I've ever heard, not to mention totally and utterly wrong. NHS doctors in the UK (a socialist healthcare system which is ranked 19 places above the US healthcare system [source]) are some of the most well paid people in the country, earning an average wage of £110,000 ($180,000) per year [source], with senior consultants being able to earn £180,000 ($290,000) [source]. So, essentially, the whole premise of the argument made here is false. But, you know, don't let facts get in the way of your unsubstantiated two minute hate.

"His reforms would require that all patients be seen, even if they don't have insurance. The patients without insurance would thus cause physicians to take a hit because who else would pay for that?"

Uhm, the state would pay. That's the whole point.

It's clear you are determined to be against Universal Healthcare, regardless of how many benefits it has.

Maybe you didn't bother checking the sources provided, or maybe it's simply a knee jerk reaction.

You mention that we don't know that it would work the same in the US as it would in countries like the UK or France, and okay, that's a legitimate point.

But we are currently ranked 37th in the world in health care, just behind Dominica and Costa Rica. In spite of our poor ranking, we currently pay more per capita than any other country. Does this make sense to you?

1. Today healthcare is based on a profit model, this is fine for selling soda, what happens when it's your health as we've seen, is instead of prevention, healthcare focuses on treatment, which costs more.

2. Instead of people taking care of a "small problem" right away, they wait because they don't want their premiums to go up or they just don't have insurance at all, and it sometimes becomes something life threatening, which costs much more.

3. Moving away from life threatning situations; if you walk into a doctor office today, and tell them you just feel tired all the time, first thing they will do is test for mono, which like 1% of the population has. That will come back negative. Then they will test you for low testosterone. Which is curable with some veggies and excercise, but whatever, it will either come back negative, or they'll give you a ridiculously expensive pill. Pretend it comes back negative. What they will do is either say nothings wrong with you and tell you to get some sleep, or if you happen to have a particularly cool doctor, he'll say "I didn't say this, but about 60% of the population is iron deficient, try vitamins and see if you feel better in a couple weeks."

Because it's a profit based, and treatment based system. And doctors today aren't allowed to tell you to try a vitamin that costs like a penny each.

You see how a profit based health system is not a good idea?

You're worried about how much a doctor would make. You do realize that people without insurance are still treated right? Two things happen, doctors volunteer at "free clinics" which actually cost like a hundred bucks, but this is time they don't get paid for, or tax payers pick up the tab anyway through 1 of dozens of programs.

So what changes with Universal Healthcare?

Doctors are now paid regardless of the financial circumstance of the individual seeing them. This would actually mean more money for doctors not less.

The only people threatened with a bigger bill through this system is the tax payer. But that wouldn't happen either.

Currently most businesses pay a dollar for healthcare for every two dollars of salary. Switching to non profit cuts business expenses to 0 overnight, allowing for better wages and more employees. Next, since profit is no longer the main concern of healthcare, doctors are allowed to prescribe preventive advice, and people can see their doctors a couple times a year, instead of only when they are sick. If a woman catches breast cancer before it spreads, it costs a couple thousand to get rid of. Once it spreads, it costs hundreds of thousands. These kinds of cases are what has made us the number one spender on healthcare, it's not sprained ankles or the flu. If you can get people to see the doctor when they should, the American people save billions. If you make it Universal, more people will see their doctor, business will have far less expenses, doctors will make more money, tax payers will save money, and most important, people will live longer and happier lives.

The only losers are the insurance companies who have been fleecing the American people for years now, so I really don't feel too bad about that, do you?

Global warming....please its still a myth...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article516033.ece

Find a source not funded by big energy, or right talking heads not funded by big energy, that backs up this silly statement. At this point it's akin to arguing evolution is still a myth, and you don't have to be a "greenie," to see that.

Why must we continue to make those that do have health care give up what they have so all of us can have less health care?

Every plan proposed has stated very clearly that one would not have to give up what they have if they don't want to... what's so hard to understand about that? You do realize that the U.S. pays more per capita than any country in the world, and in spite of that here's the rankings link

You'll notice we are behind several 3rd world countries. And you'll also notice that almost every country with better health care than us, who incidently also pay less per person, has Universal Healthcare.

The poor already have access to education. They just have to WANT it enough to go get it

Are you saying poor people don't want an education? Or that poor people are dumb? I don't get your point. The point you were responding to was simply that government gaurantees education up to the 12th grade. Are you saying they shouldn't? Here are the top 5 education systems in order:

Finland

China

UK

Japan

US

All of whose governments guarantee education for everyone including the poor. Of course you have wonderful samples where government does not provide this service, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, wow, that must be great to not have the government all up in there business huh?

Peace comes from strength.

Yeah, because you know how Switzerland is all not peaceful and junk. Anyway, there's a difference between national defense, and running around the world starting wars with random dictators that have nothing to do with us. Outside of that I would agree with you if only I did not have the sneaking suspicion you've never heard the addage "walk softly and carry a big stick."

Law enforcement is a LOCAL issue. Deal with it there. We should all ck out the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Ignoring that the 10th Amendment in no way takes away any right of the national government to enforce the law, are you saying we should do away with the FBI, CIA, DOD, etc? You have some very odd ideas that you do not back up with any alternate solutions, do you know that?

Social Security has never been social nor secure. Actually it's extraordinarily secure, checks come on time and for the right amount like every single month, I wish a third of my clients were half as "secure."

Next, every person who receives SS also paid into it, it's part of everyone's taxes.

Finally, without SS, what do you suggest we do with all the people who are too old to support themselves? Throw them on the streets? What's wrong with supporting people who contributed to our society their entire lives in a humane way?

So like, if a cop shoots a guy whose about to kill someone, he's not a hero because the government provided his gun?

Damn socialist cops, thanks for clearing that up wiz.

Well I'll admit right now that he can stretch the truth. I mean, come on, do you honestly think anybody anywhere in the world could get elected if they didn't fudge the facts once in a while?

That said, I do think Obama is a lot more honest than most politicians.

I was calling bullshit on your assertion that "any thing he says will be diametrically opposite from what he does". That's just not true.

You call a duck a duck? Well I call bullshit bullshit.

Anyway, I'm fine with discussing your three examples if you want.

LMAO,

wow, you're a regular conspirator aren't you?

Don't worry though, I have biggy and tupak hanging out in my basement, we're currently disecting bigfoot, aliens actually assassinated jfk because he threatened to make area 51 public, and I'm a magical unicorn writing this with my hoofs.

He raises taxes on households that make 250,000 dollars a year or more. People you make that much money usually work there asses off.

That's great...and they should continue to work their asses off because they are still making way more money then people who make 20,000 dollars a year, even with the tax increase.

In a perfect world, no one would get taxed and the government wouldn't be needed at all. But in the real world we do need the government, and it takes money to run the government. So let me ask you a question, who should we take the money from? The people who are making over 250,000 dollars a year, and are working 45 hour weeks. Or should we take it from the construction worker who has to work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day for about 50,000 dollars a year. (In case you were wondering, that's a description of what my former wrestling coach had to do. His schedule actually kept him from coaching my last two years of high school).

I agree with the american dream, but not everyone can live the "american dream." If everyone was living the american dream, we wouldnt have people doing ordinary but needed jobs.

Your right that not everyone can be CEO of a company or a multi-millionaire...that's not what I was suggesting. I also agree that we will always need people to do manual labor, low paying jobs. There is no reason, however, that these people shouldn't have basic rights like education and healthcare.

if Obama took troops out of the middle east,like he promised, it wouldnt require the billions of dollars for funding, which can go toward other things.

Obama actually promised to just take troops out of Iraq. The war in Afghanistan will still require U.S. troops. I agree that military spending is out of control, but it would be irresponsible to just pull out all the troops from Iraq too quickly. He has scaled back our presence their significantly, however, and soon we should be virtually gone.

In a recession that really should be the last goal. Cutting spending during a recession will deepen it

Nothing really well I'm from Aus so i don't really get the news about obama but from what i have heard it sounds like he is a good prime-inister and a good person.