Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Community article probation

Official website

I have again reverted Ajlipp's edit that added the Barack Obama Foundation to the "official site" item of the infobox for two reasons:

1. The Foundation will only become active after Barack Obama leaves office
2. We cannot know what will happen to the current official site

I think we shouldn't change it until after Obama's presidency. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and added the website back. Since the Foundation is currently in operation (right now it is looking for a location for building the library) and authorized by Obama, I thought it should be there. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please self-revert. First of all, you are needlessly perpetuating an edit war without allowing sufficient discussion here. Second, there's no source anywhere that says the Foundation is the "official site" of Barack Obama. Let's have a proper discussion, not an edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact, since neither site represents an "official website" of Barack Obama, neither should be listed and the item should be removed from the infobox. Instead, both should be in the "External links" section. Incidentally, the "official site" of his predecessor is georgewbush.com, so leaving it as it was would be more consistent. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The foundation is now listed as an external link instead of on the sidebar. It is offical because of Foundation Information.--Frmorrison (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

better photo?

that grinning photo is terrible, Obama rarely looks like that. He usually looks much more sober and serious. farther down in the page, OK, but "above the fold" should be a more familiar picture. 67.243.29.174 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That is the official Oval Office portrait, which is what is preferred for the presidential biographical articles. Tarc (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If that is wiki policy, it is in conflict with other wiki policies. Just as people are not supposed to edit their own wiki pages, politicians should not be able to choose their own wiki photos, for precisely the reason I raised this issue. I don't recall every seeing Obama look like this. Think of the hope photo. 67.243.29.174 (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

So go lobby to change the policy; I don't know where the correct place to do that is, but it isn't here (on an individual president's page). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This talk page is the correct place to ask to change the main picture. However, it will be hard to gain consensus, since this photo is Obama's official portrait. If Obama did not like it, he would have taken another portrait. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

True, but we don't care a bean whether the individual pictured likes the picture, in any article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What pic to use then? We can't go wrong by puttin in a pic that Obama himself provides, don't want to use a controversial picture for this BLP for example. And I think it's just a non neutral POV to say this pic has a weird grin. Looks fine to me. Popish Plot (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

When I said "it is preferred", I meant that it is preferred by a consensus of Wikipedia editors to use the official portrait. Not that any of the subjects had any input into the matter. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2015

Dorkydad63 (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have an actual edit request to make? This one was blank. Tarc (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

ACA information

I feel as if there is too little information about the complications surrounding the initial rollout of the ACA, particularly the technical problems with the federal website. I also noticed that there is no mention, at least under "healthcare reform", of the confusion over who can keep their plan and who cannot. I am not saying we need to go full fox news about this or that criticisms should be a major portion of the subsection, but at the very least a sentence or two are needed to maintain an unbiased description. Please let me know what you think about this. Tacocar (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Stuff like that is really too detailed to get into in a biographical article. Have you checked Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and perhaps Presidency of Barack Obama? Tarc (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There is not much there either, and I do think that there is a great deal of positive detail on this page, especially about the ACA, without any mention of negative occurrences. When I look at other biographical pages, like George W. Bush's, I see a great deal of positive and negative comments and analysis, which is a good thing! I just feel as though Obama's statements about keeping your plan are more pertinent to a biography page than the details about how the ACA works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacocar (talk • contribs)

This article is about Barack Obama, not the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. If the ACA article is lacking in detail, please make suggestions there. Also, to suggest there is a "great deal of positive detail... without any mention of negative occurrences" is not a fair reading of the article and a recipe for setting up a false balance. Moreover, we don't change articles on the basis of what goes on at other articles. Articles are by and large independent of one another. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to cause any anger here, I am new to contributing to Wikipedia so please forgive me if I am still learning how it works. I am simply confused as to why there is no mention of Obama lying to the American people about keeping their plan and keeping their doctor. Believe me, I personally have no issue with the Law and I understand that the plans that were cancelled barely qualify as medical insurance at all, but when a president lies to his people, or at the very least does not understand consequences of his legislation, it should be listed on his or her biography. I understand that this is not an article specifically about his presidency, but under the healthcare subsection there are specific descriptions of how the law works and how it was legally justified, yet no mention of the issue of "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". Perhaps the issue is that there is too much information there already, but I do not understand how insurance rates under a person's presidency is any more linked to him or her than repeatedly misleading his or her people. I am really not trying to start a political debate here, I am simply seeing what looks to be an article with a slight bias towards the president, and as an avid user of Wikipedia I want to see the least biased articles possible. I would understand leaving this information out if it was disputable whether or not the president misled the American people about keeping their plans, but it is an undisputable fact that the president stated that the American people could keep their plans under the ACA "period". Simply put: I think his comments about the American people being able to keep their plans are just as, if not more, applicable to this article as a description of the law and a chart showing insurance rates during his presidency. I would like to make it clear again that I am not trying to attack anyone personally, but rather understand different opinions on the matter. On another note, I agree that articles should be handled independently; I was trying to show the article on Bush as an example of a biography that showed positives and negatives in an unbiased format. Thank you. Tacocar (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

First off, when you take things out of content or change the wording, it can be misleading. Obama had a grandfather clause in the law to keep old plans, but it was not strong enough to work. The intent was there. Such a confusing matter that no one knows how many plans were cancelled, does not belong in a biography. I added a statement that in late 2013 he dropped in approval rating due the ACA rollout. -Frmorrison (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether or not he intended for people to lose their plans or not because it is obvious that he would never want that. I simply believe it should at least be mentioned that he failed to deliver on this promise, especially because he campaigned on it so much. If there is enough room to describe the maximum out-of-pocket premiums under the law, there is enough room to explain where he was not able to follow though on a promise he continuously made to the American people. Also, he continued to make that promise after the law was signed and the HHS regulations had been released. The idea that if you like the plan you currently have then you can keep it was one of the major promises obama made about the law and I think that should be included. Thank you. (Again, not trying to spark any anger)Tacocar (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No it should be included here because if it not important enough. I would bet real money that every member of Congress has promised something and it didn't happen. If you want to contribute information about the ACA, check out the ACA article instead of this one. You do not have consensus over your contrasting opinions. -Frmorrison (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, only two types of plans were cancelled:

1. Plans that were so utterly rubbish, they didn't cover the minimal requirements set out in the ACA ("junk" policies).
2. Plans that were deemed too costly by greedy insurance companies, so they used the ACA as an excuse to screw their customers.

A tiny percentage of the population actually had their insurance cancelled, and most who did were able to get better policies for less money. So the reality is that although it didn't work out quite as planned, the nation is far better off with the ACA than without it. Focusing on a single negative talking point pushed by Republicans ignores the enormous success of "Obamacare" and thus sets up a false balance. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not a republican. However, I don't think obamacare can be considered an "enormous success", at least not yet. But that is besides the point. I do not think the best way to avoid political bias is by completely ignoring a highly publicised issue with the law, especially considering how it affected his approval ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacocar (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The ACA aka obamacare is a complex topic. I do think it's his most notable accomplishment so should be discussed more. This article links to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act so I don't think it's being ignored. But you may disagree with that article. I guess we don't have 100% reliable sources showing whether it's a success or failure at this point. Popish Plot (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Many of the so-called "junk" policies that got canceled due to the ACA were canceled because they did not cover birth control for people in their 50s and 60s. The ACA requires all policies to cover birth control, even if the customers are too old to use it. These customers did not consider these policies to be "junk," and to use that word to describe them is an insult to the intelligence of those customers.

As possible sources for criticism of the ACA for both this article and the main ACA article, the article at this link contains 331 criticisms of the ACA, and many of those criticisms are by Democrats and unions who had originally supported the ACA. Every one of these criticisms includes links to sources. While this article itself is not a reliable source, the hundreds of links that it contains are reliable sources. The ACA is much worse than you are claiming, as is proven by the many criticisms coming from the people who had originally supported it: http://tinyurl dot com /m8tfd7q 71.182.249.12 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The IP-hopper's comment can be safely ignored. The blog is a partisan right-wing screed that links to dozens of low-quality sources. The claims about the junk policies are ludicrous - the whole point of the ACA is to spread the cost around, so older people who aren't going to have kids have to pay for birth control just the same as they have to pay for school taxes. The ACA has been one of the great successes of the 21st century. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are some examples from the list, along with what you claim are their "low quality" sources:

Harvard faculty members who supported the passage of Obamacare later complained that they had to pay for it: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/health-care-fixes-backed-by-harvards-experts-now-roil-its-faculty.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=2

Unite Here (a union that supported Obama in both elections) said Obamacare “threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage.” http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2545310

In December 2012, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, and 15 other Democrats who supported the passage of Obamacare wrote a letter to Harry Reid, asking him to delay the tax on medical devices, claiming that the tax would hurt job creation in their districts. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/MedDeviceLetter12102012.pdf

Five minute CNN video of Obamacare supporter complaining and complaining and complaining about her insurance being canceled https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F0z-Hxi5s8

I’m an Obama supporter. But Obamacare has hurt my family. Obamacare has been far more frustrating than I’d ever dreamed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/10/im-an-obama-supporter-but-obamacare-has-hurt-my-family/

Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They Backed http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323854904578260313912570432.html

A self described “complete fan of the Affordable Care Act” who had cancer complained that Obamacare had caused her to lose coverage for her oncologist http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-patients-20140205,0,1675336,full.story#axzz2sS6Xcoul

Obamacare caused Catherine Blackwood to lose coverage for her cancer medications http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579390772732855560?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1000142405270230394570457939077273

Doctor who survived breast cancer said “Under Obamacare, I’d be dead.” http://www.aim.org/guest-column/how-obamacare-slaps-the-sick/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=4417d947cf-email030714&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c4ddfc8d9d-4417d947cf-221591193

Obamacare forced colon cancer survivor Janet Grigg to lose her doctor. Her new Obamacare policy covers zero doctors within a 400 mile radius of her home. http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/30/cancer-survivors-obamacare-plan-doesnt-cover-a-single-doctor-in-400-miles/

After cancer patient Linda Rolain paid her Obamacare premiums, Obamacare refused to pay for her medical treatment, and she died http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/woman-class-action-lawsuit-against-xerox-dies

Obamacare encourages employers to adopt a 29 hour work week, and this disproportionately hurts women http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/shes-a-29er/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&partner=yahoofinance&_r=1

Hundreds of employers have switched to a 29 hour work week to avoid paying for Obamacare http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/101713-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm

Obamacare customer borrowed $14,000 to pay for cataract surgery because her Obamacare policy refused to pay for it http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_27481258/obamacare-medi-cal-waiting-game-many-low-income

100% of Senate Democrats up for reelection planned to support a delay in Obamacare’s individual mandate - This tweet is from CNN's Dana Bash: https://twitter.com/DanaBashCNN/status/393110100153352192

In February 2008, Obama said: “We are going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500. We will not wait 20 years from now to do it, or 10 years from now to do it. We will do it by the end of my first term as president.” However, by the time his first term was over, family premiums had gotten bigger, not smaller. The increase was $3,065 per family. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-premiums-3-065-obama-224300715.html

Obamacare includes a 40% tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans. In August 2013, unions that supported the passage of Obamacare complained about this tax. http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/obamacares-cadillac-tax-poses-problem-for-unions-and-city-finances.html/?ref=YF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.41.135 (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Those are just some examples. The list contains hundreds of others, all with links to sources.

74.98.41.135 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Mostly out of date crap. The ACA is humming along nicely now, with few problems. Also, absolutely _none_ of that is biographically significant. And Democrats seeking delays regretted that after they lost their elections, the fools. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia is encyclopedic. Therefore, content cannot be "out of date."

2) No, the people in those, and in the hundreds of other examples, are not "humming along nicely now."

3) I agree with you that those things are not relevant to this article. However, they are relevant to the ACA article, but time and experience have shown that the people who control that article will not allow those things to be in that article. For example, the ACA article falsely claims that only "several" employers have adopted a 29 hour work week in order to avoid paying for Obamacare, when the source I cited above says the real number is in the "hundreds." Multiple attempts to replace this false info with the true info at the ACA article have been reverted, because the people who control that article prefer to give false info that makes the the ACA look good, instead of true info that makes the ACA look bad.

4) The ACA was deliberately written to that its most damaging provisions would not take place until after the 2012 election. In 2010, the only people criticizing the ACA were Republicans and Libertarians. However, starting in the fall of 2013, much of the biggest criticism has been coming from Democrats and unions, who seem totally shocked that these things are happening. Perhaps they should have actually read the ACA back in 2010, and then they would not be surprised at what is happening. If Republicans actually had any brains, they would stop trying to repeal the ACA, and instead, let the Democrats and unions who supported it, deal with the harm that it is causing them.

74.98.34.9 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)