Obama's (False) Mandate
May 12th 2009 16:05
In a discussion between Michael Cannon, of the Cato Institute, and Dr. Hoangmai Pham, of the National Physicians Alliance, on the issue of whether health care is a right, Dr. Pham said:
Michael Cannon later asked:
This snippet of their exchange brings up many key questions that need to be answered. One being, does the election of a President automatically give the public's approval of all that he does? I think this is nonsense to assume so. Only a relatively small fraction of the public actually voted. Of them, only a small majority voted for Obama. It would be a stretch to assume that all of those that voted for Obama agree 100% on the direction he is taking health care. So, "from an empiric standpoint", no, I do not think that Obama's election victory gives him the entire public's endorsement (Have we seriously gotten to the point that we don't even acknowledge those with dissenting opinions?).
The U.S.'s winner-take-all election rules result in two main parties. As a consequence, there are a limited variety of ideas between those running for office. This leads to people voting for the candidate they least disagree with, and not necessarily the one they most agree with. It may make more sense to say the public disapproved of McCain's health care plan, rather than saying they approved of Obama's. However, there are more than just these two plans available as a means of tackling the problem of health care.
In reference to Mr. Cannon's question, if Obama passes universal coverage of some sort, and then a Conservative opposed to these health care reforms is elected in 2012, is health care no longer a right? Would Dr. Pham be okay with reversing Obama's reforms, due to the "public's endorsement" of health care no longer being a right?
Here is the video:
From an empiric standpoint, the country has decided that [health care] is a right by the election of Obama
Michael Cannon later asked:
If we elect someone later, does [health care] cease to be a right?
This snippet of their exchange brings up many key questions that need to be answered. One being, does the election of a President automatically give the public's approval of all that he does? I think this is nonsense to assume so. Only a relatively small fraction of the public actually voted. Of them, only a small majority voted for Obama. It would be a stretch to assume that all of those that voted for Obama agree 100% on the direction he is taking health care. So, "from an empiric standpoint", no, I do not think that Obama's election victory gives him the entire public's endorsement (Have we seriously gotten to the point that we don't even acknowledge those with dissenting opinions?).
The U.S.'s winner-take-all election rules result in two main parties. As a consequence, there are a limited variety of ideas between those running for office. This leads to people voting for the candidate they least disagree with, and not necessarily the one they most agree with. It may make more sense to say the public disapproved of McCain's health care plan, rather than saying they approved of Obama's. However, there are more than just these two plans available as a means of tackling the problem of health care.
In reference to Mr. Cannon's question, if Obama passes universal coverage of some sort, and then a Conservative opposed to these health care reforms is elected in 2012, is health care no longer a right? Would Dr. Pham be okay with reversing Obama's reforms, due to the "public's endorsement" of health care no longer being a right?
Here is the video:
| 32 |
| Vote |
