The New York Times, Front Page: Flecks of Grey??
After just 44 days into the presidency, Obama is showing the signs of a stressful job. The article in The New York Times shows a picture of President Obama back in 2007 versus now. It mentions Bill Clinton going from half a head of brown hair to fully white after two years in office, and George W. Bush going from "salt and pepper" to just "salt" in a short period of time.
According to the article, people are "blogging" about how President Obama must die his hair. According to Zariff however, his hairdresser of 16 years, it's 100% natural. According to Dr. Michael F. Roizen, "Presidents age two years for every year they're in office."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/us/politics/05gray.html?ref=todayspaper
*The Washington Post also ran an article on President Obama going grey, but it wasn't on the front page.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030403008.html
Los Angeles Times, Front Page: President Obama's Czar System Concerns Some
This article focuses on certain lawmakers and Washington interest groups that are concerned with the people President Obama is naming as his "policy czars." The high-level staff members will help him oversee the administrations top anitiatives. Based on the people he's appointing in such powerful positions, some lawmakers and interest groups worry that he is subverting the authority of Congress and putting too much power into the presidency.
So far, Obama has appointed special advisors to help him inside the White House regarding healthcare, the economy and energy issues. According to the article, "It's far too early to tell whether Obama's quest for efficiency will lead to overstepping the boundaries of presidential authority..."
Obama just recently appointed two women to lead his healhcare effort, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Nancy-Ann DeParle, who was named "health czar." He has also appointed Carol Browner as White House "energy czar" which, according to the article, "could overlap with the functions of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Department and other agencies."
Main point of the article is the issue of appointing white house staffers to assume assumed certain duties that should be the responsibility of officials cleared through the Senate confirmation process. Although it is early in the Obama presidency, many are starting to question the "czar" setup.
Question: Do you think that Obama appointing these "Czars" to head certain policies and efforts he's trying to push is going to have a negative impact? Or do you think it's necessary to have people in these positions because of the challenges this country is facing right now? (Especially economically)
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-obama-czars5-2009mar05,0,3862215.story
The Washington Post: In Health Plan, Industry Sees Good Business
Since becomming president, Obama has proposed bigger discounts on medications that are bought through Medicaid. The plan is to hopefully save drug campanios billions a year.
Obama's goal to drastically expand the healthcare system is attracting a lot of support from insurers and hospitals that wasn't expected. What's enticing the medical industry, is the prospect of tens of millions of new customers, who as of now, are not insured.
President Obama has proposed a $634 billion "healthcare reserve fund" that will be paid for through cuts in payments to insurers, doctors, hospitals and drugmakers. According to the article, Obama's intention is to "dole out the pain in smal, easier-to-swallow bites." The ones that will sacrafice most are doctors, insurers, hospitals and wealthy seniors, but if Obama's system works, the hope is that no one will lose too much.
On the other hand, lobbyists and healthcare experts are warning that some major obsticles are ahead of us with Obama's proposition. AARP, the seniors lobby, opposes an increase in Medicare's prescrption drug premiums for wealthy retirees. Home-care providers are also objecting to cuts on their Medicare reimbursements.
In his young presidency, Obama has the stated goal of "assembling a broad reform package by the end of the year that would push the nation closer to universal coverage." 46 million American's are now estimated without health insurance. Despite the economic crisis, Obama has made this healthcare effort a "fiscal priority" calling it "a historic commitment to reform that will lead to lower costs and quality, affordable health care for every American."
Question: What do you think about Obama's proposed healthcare plan? Does the oposition have a valid argument, or is it necessary right now, with so many uninsured Americans, to cut payments to doctors, hospital and drugmakers in order to insure more Americans?
Posted By: Amanda Berkley
0 comments:
Post a Comment