This may seem like a civics lesson. It is not intended as such. I was not that interested when I took any coursework related to the subject. My understanding of government is pretty limited, but I am bothered by certain illogical positions politicians and perhaps the individuals who back them are willing to take in the political season.
What bothers me at present is the argument that because someone was President, Secretary of State, or a member of a specific party, things that happened when it is assumed these things are bad or do not happen when these things are good are the responsibility of those being held up for criticism.
They way government works was explained to me as a separation of powers. It is very difficult to do most things on your own. So, typically, responsibility for any given situation must be shared.
There are exceptions. For example, the President as “commander in chief” has certain decision-making powers regarding military issues. Accordingly, the rise of ISIS are attributed to the decision making of the president and secretary of state. As I understand the complaint, drawing down the military left this power gap allowing the germination and flourishing of ISIS.
Remembering your history is important here. What I remember is the frustration of the American people that the large number of troops and casualty levels in Iraq while we were mostly going it alone and feeling unsupported by Iraq was not received positively by the American people. Do you remember things differently? I tried to find what I could about the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. You might be interested in what I found. President Bush (GW) signed the Status of Forces agreement establishing a commitment to get our troops out by 2011. The lower level of commitment was not the decision of President Obama and it was agreed to by both the U.S. and Iraq under a different administration.
While on the topic of the situation in Iraq. The situation in Iraq was destabalized based on the position that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and was using and developing weapons of massed destruction. Of course, both arguments used to gain the support of congress and the American people were false. One of the unfortunate consequences of creating a vacuum in a deeply divided region without appreciating the complexities of the region or without a long-term plan established the conditions for the present situation. Whether the decisions were appropriate is not the issue. Maybe it was a good decision (Saddam was a bad guy) and maybe it was not. Holding the present administration responsible for the consequences of decisions made by others represents simplistic thinking when a simple explanation is not sufficient and inaccurate.
Consider a different situation. The Affordable Care Act was passed with the President and majority control from the same party. The Affordable Care Act is complicated, but it set out to do some specific things. One important commitment from my perspective was the provision that prevented insurance companies from denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. My wife and two daughters have a genetic mutation that makes certain cancers highly likely (BRACA). My wife has already dealt with cancer on two different occasions. I assume you would agree with me that putting people who must deal with this reality is a situation that an insurance company can ignore them is unacceptable and the type of thing the government should remedy. The percent of uninsured has dropped from 15 to 9%. I assume this is a good thing. Since the uninsured tend not be denied treatment, but do receive inferior treatment, I assume this is a good thing.
What about the increases in cost? Some increase might be expected.The reason insurance companies do not want to cover those with pre-existing positions is because they have pre-existing conditions. This does change the odds a bit. Again, if you are against the role of government in addressing this issue, I regard you as self-centered.
There were potential opportunties. As I said, those without insurance are seldom ignored. They end up in the ER for things that could often be treated in the office because they cannot afford to go the office when a condition is in the early stages. They do not engage in preventative measures that would reduce the problems that puts them in situations others do not face. It is hard to know how these potential advantages have worked out.
What else has happened? It appears that some businesses have taken advantage of the situation to ask employers to seek insurance on their own. Medical costs and charges from the insurance company costs have increased.
So, here is where the political establishment and the business establishment have a different take on things. If you struggle with understanding how this works, I refer you to that genius Donald Trump and his explanation of how the job of a business person is to maximize profits for self and investors and take advantage of those situations allowed by the government. I am not sure what to say about responsibility in this case.