Comment by D9u | Hacker News Reader

Comment by D9u | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Only someone completely in denial would not see that Mr. Obama, as President, has exhibited far more acceptance for the previous administration's policies than he had for said policies during his initial campaign for the Presidency.

Such continuation of the previous administration's policies leads many to believe that the Presidency is, in fact, a figurehead position.

The fact that Senator Obama campaigned so vocally against the domestic surveillance program[s] as well as the "Patriot Act" and then chose to extend these policies after being elected President is quite disturbing to those of use who view this situation with any semblance of objectivity.

My views are in no way "racist," nor do I "hate" President Obama.

I actually admire a man who came from a broken home, struggled with the issues he worked through during his lifetime, continued his education, and made millions before ascending to the pinnacle of power within the USA, as well as the world, yet said "power" is in question when we see the present situation.

What has really changed since President Obama took office? What has remained the same as before he was elected?

Healthcare is a major change that this President achieved. That is far more than a figurehead could have accomplished.

When you emerge from the bubble of security (though those concerns are valid), you'll see many changes that Obama pushed forward.

Yes, he has many policies in place that he campaigned against but he also changed this country in many other areas (for better or worse). To call him a figurehead is ridiculous.

Edit: took out opinion

We already had free health care for indigent people, even illegal aliens could walk into any community health care center and receive free health care. The only real effect I've noticed is a lot of people complaining about various aspects of the ACA. This health care debate is nothing new, and has been in the works for at least 20 years. One could say that health care reform was inevitable, and would have been enacted in some form, or another, regardless of who the President happened to be at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_19...

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/24/2828261/

"One could say that health care reform was inevitable, and would have been enacted in some form, or another, regardless of who the President happened to be at the time."

But that would clearly be erroneous.

For example, Hillary Clinton's effort in 1993 (your first link) was plowed under. And it came very close to happening with ACA as well. ACA passed only using the reconciliation mechanism in the Senate, and survived the Roberts court on a 5-4 vote. It's not inevitable at all.

> This health care debate is nothing new, and has been in the works for at least 20 years. One could say that health care reform was inevitable

The debate over universal health insurance at least 60 years old (Eisenhower's reinsurance proposal was intended to acheive that by providing public insurance to insurers against overly-high expenses), and the history of efforts in the domain provides no basis to conclude that something would have been adopted in the 2009-2012 term no matter who was elected in 2008.

It might have been "inevitable" eventually (though even that there is little evidence supporting), but whether it would have been now, or 20 years from now, or another 60 years before major steps were taken toward universal coverage, well, that's another question.

Is it completely impossible that when he was a senator he wasn't privy to all the information he has now about the possible threats that the patriot act helps to stave off? Now that he is president he might be able to make a more informed decision.

That being said I don't know if that's actually the case but I'm not yet at the point where I have 0 faith in government.

When we see the Director of NSA give inconsistent testimony before Congress about the efficacy of the domestic surveillance program[s] yet no one calls it perjury, then I have zero faith in our government.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/5352917/5352917

> Mr. Obama, as President, has exhibited far more acceptance for the previous administration's policies than he had for said policies during his initial campaign for the Presidency.

Wasn't the previous administration from across the aisle? Don't you have to campaign against that status quo to get elected when you are the opposite party?

That scenario is only one of many possible explanations for why that happened.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com