The President, by himself is not the issue. It is the body, the Congress v. Parliament that presents the problem.

You, as would Fareed, would give power to the legislature by removing the check that the President represents. This would push the framework to be progressive in nature – lots of change very quickly. That also assumes that government fixes much of anything. Government is best kept small by having checks on powers in a balanced relationship.

I believe you both misunderstand the intent of the Constitution.

If American operated under a parliamentary system, rather than dividing the executive and the legislature as the current system does, the head of state and head of government would be divided. The US would have to be a republican parliamentary system rather than a Westminster constitutional monarchy, so you would still have an elected President as Head of State, filling a largely ceremonial role, but who could exercise the equivalent of reserve powers. In a republican parliamentary system, the elected President may still veto a bill that passes Parliament, depending on how this hypothetical constitution would be set up.

And even if Prime Minister Obama and his Democratic majority in the House of Representatives passed a health care bill, the Senate would still have to pass it and could make amendments. (Think of the Australian system here).

Even if Prime Minister Obama succeeded in passing his health care legislation, the Democrats would be massively defeated in the next general election three or four years later. Upon the election of a new parliament, the Republicans could form a majority government and then repeal the healthcare bill and restore the status quo.