I don't mean this as a put down, but I think you misread the article.
I understand the article, though it's a bit of a mess.
For example he says this [emphasis mine]:
During last year’s Presidential campaign, Obama remarked to the editorial board of the Reno Gazette-Journal, “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.” He then had to spend several days apologizing, but it’s easy to see what he was trying to say: as President, he wanted to have a liberal effect equivalent to Reagan’s conservative one.
It’s important to remember, though, that Reagan was not so maximalist as he sounded. During his first Inaugural Address, he declared that “government is the problem,” but he did not try to dismantle the “socialized medicine” program he had begun his political career railing against. Welfare reform came not under Reagan but under Bill Clinton, who governed in Reagan’s long shadow. Reagan’s critical contribution was to change the terms of the debate. ...
He says this as if it's a good thing. But, for instance, how did Reagan change the terms of the debate? What Reagan accomplished, as you point out, was a culture-shift. And as we've seen from events like the economic crisis and the increasing coarseness of debate that has its roots in the Reagan/Atwater influence, that while Reagan's culture shift seemed great at first (and it did: I was there and that shift was like a big breath of fresh air after Nixon/Ford/Carter), in the long run it's been destructive. I agree that Obama's doing the same as Reagan, and it doesn't matter whether its a Democrat or Republican doing it, the end result is destructive. And that's because the Reagan/Obama culture-shift is based on pretense and deceit rather than authenticity.
And then:
... Obama has already substantially realized his Reagan-size Presidential ambition, though in a manner almost opposite from Reagan’s: he has significantly increased the size and scope of government—just look at the classic measure, the increase in federal spending—but hasn’t set out to change the prevailing rhetoric about government. ...
But that's kind of ridiculous because Obama's increase in federal spending has been primarily a response to the economic crisis, and in truth Reagan significantly increased defense spending and that was supposedly in response to our military vulnerability, which was sold as another kind of crisis. It's not opposite from Reagan's, it's the same. One can argue whether or not Reagan was right to spend that way or whether Obama has been right, but the point is they're not opposite, they're very similar.
Reagan, according to this piece, changed the terms of debate but left the good lawmaking to Clinton. I don't trust that in a similar scenario the next Republican President will lead good lawmaking.
What you envision Obama accomplishing might be nice if we had the luxury of the world Reagan inherited but we do not. We have big messes and big needs right now, they're pressing hard and we need a President who'll come up with plans to address them and has the leadership skill to get them passed.
I have a lot of respect for your intelligence and knowledge, so please don't misunderstand if I seem harsh; it's my opinion about Obama I'm expressing, it's not personal. You and I simply disagree about Obama. And many people agree with you -- you could link to many many opinion pieces that support your opinion. But I am even more convinced now, after seeing Obama's choices since becoming President, that my assessment of how he'll perform as President was spot-on. Time will tell. I hope I'm wrong. But frankly I also hope you're wrong because I do seriously think we need a President who's prepared to lead straight into the battles we face today, not one who is "subtly and incrementally altering the discourse and culture, and ultimately then making it easier for the Democrats in the future to be on the political offensive rather than the defensive."
I apologize for the clunkiness of this post; I'm juggling a few things right now but I wanted to respond to you this evening.
will be covered, however in rare instances they still will be treated whether they are Mexican, Canadian, German, French, Japanese, or whatever. Upon recovering they then will individually be on the hook for their medical care bill. If they cannot pay then yes, the system "loses" but that's how it works today. Hospitals are charged with saving lives not being immigration police and US customs demanding proof of citizenship from people staggering in, or being wheeled into the ER.
I think I got sidetracked with Vampire Diaries or Big Brother or something.