Michael

If the US thinks that it can control the geopolitical events in the Middle East, it is fooling no one but itself. The best it can do is to try to make deals with governments that all have dubious intentions. The Iranians are supporting Hamas, the gulf states were supporting the Sunnis that killed thousands of Americans in Iraq and cost the US trillions of dollars and brought about ISIS, Israel is always pushing the US to fight another war and is unbending, and whether Sunni or Shia, the majority of the people want Sharia law strictly enforced and have no desire for democracy.

Dealing with Iran is no different than dealing with Saudi Arabia were they will try to get what they want and then stab you in the back. If the west can get a nuclear agreement with Iran that can be verified, that's a major achievement for the west. Iran may honor that agreement in their own self interest since the sanctions will be lifted allowing them to export more oil and possibly cooperate with the US since they don't want Sunni extremists on their border but they'll still support Hamas.

Iraq used the US to help them turn a Sunni government into a Shia government that excluded Sunnis and had close ties to Iran. George H.W. Bush realized that would likely happen if the US pushed to Bagdad but apparently his son did not.

As far as the Saudis, it hard to tell whether they are a friend or foe. They support extremists, raised the price of crude in 2008 to $150 a barrel when they thought they had the upper hand, are now openly trying to drive the price of crude down to put a hurt on the US fracking producers since they see US oil production as a threat, and don't want to see an agreement with Iran since they are Shia and an additional 700,000 barrels of crude will hit the market immediately which will reduce Saudi influence/leverage even more. Although bringing more oil to the market will put even more downward pressure on crude which the Saudis want in the short term, it's not something they want in the long term.

Anian

It doesn't matter for the Democrats. Obama has nothing to lose so he can be the whipping boy while the rest of the Democrats play nicely in comparison to the republicans, in preparation for the next election.

Steerpike

Personally, I feel differently about healthcare. I'm perhaps 'slightly left of center' when it comes to housing and food - I support assistance in both, but would not like to see the situation here in the US reach the levels of the UK, where living on welfare appears to have become an acceptable part of society. But with healthcare, I feel strongly that it should be universal, because you have little if any control over your health (yes, we could euthanize smokers and fatties, etc ... but that's not going to address the real issues).

Further, I believe that providing free healthcare is ultimately going to to save money, dealing with issues earlier in their lifecycle (detect a stage 1 cancer rather than treat a stage 4 cancer, simple example). So if implemented properly, this could be a win-win.

I'm also supportive of Jeb Bush on immigration - his statement about illegal immigration being an 'act of love' is a powerful one and one that should be applauded. Jeb Bush: Many illegal immigrants come out of an ‘act of love’ - The Washington Post
"I look at this -- and I'm going to say this, and it'll be on tape and so be it. The way I look at this is someone who comes to our country because they couldn’t come legally, they come to our country because their ... children didn’t have food on the table. And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family. I honestly think that that is a different kind of crime that there should be a price paid, but it shouldn’t rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families."

For the record, I voted for one Republican this time (State Assembly) - Catharine Baker - instead of Tim Sbranti - because Sbranti is an old-school union puppet who puts teachers unions over schoolkids.

scrubbedexpat099

Basic Healthcare I look on as the same way as Police, Fire Brigade etc.

Both UK and US have gone beyond that. Part of the problem, for example watch late night TV and probably day time TV and see all the adverts for things that they will get for you if you are on Medicare.

Steerpike

Two questions ....

1) I've heard it said numerous times that while a majority poll "against" Obamacare / ACA, a significant portion are against it because it does not go far enough. Thus, if the question were, 'would you like to see a return to the previous situation, without changes', you would not get a majority in favor. Has there been much polling on this angle, of late?

2) On the topic of Voter ID - while I believe strongly that 'voter fraud' is not a 'real' issue, it is an emotional topic, and it is also hard to convince a lot of the population that there are a significant segment of the (poor, black, elderly) population that simply don't have, and really don't need (other than for voting) a photo ID. So ... given the RIDICULOUS amount of money the parties are willing to spend on advertizing and other election-related expenses, why don't the democrats simply fund a highly visible, well-monitored voter registration effort that pays for all these (poor, black, elderly) folks to get registered? I mean, let's get Bill Gates to dump a few billion into it if necessary ... get them all fully equipped with nice shiny photo ID cards. This would actually represent a totally legal effort to 'buy' votes.

sir_eccles

It is often said that the way the question is worded greatly affects people's perceptions of the ACA.

- Do you like Obamacare - NO

- Do you like that the ACA allows children to stay on their parent's policy until 26 - YES
- Do you like that the ACA eliminates pre-exisiting conditions - YES
- Do you like that the ACA means the insurance companies can't cancel your policy on a whim - YES
- ...annual out of pocket limits - YES
- ...limits to annual premium raises - YES
- ...every single other thing about the ACA - YES

There are generally huge voter drives backed by parties and private organizations. Often they get smeared or in AZ taken to court claiming they were using the wrong form.

Giantaxe

Here is an example of the issues an independent organization ran into in Florida:

Why LWV Florida can't register voters | League of Women Voters

scrubbedexpat099

- Do you like Obamacare - NO

- Do you like that the ACA allows children to stay on their parent's policy until 26 - YES

Not sure why it should be relevant so No

- Do you like that the ACA eliminates pre-exisiting conditions - YES

Group policies did anyway.

- Do you like that the ACA means the insurance companies can't cancel your policy on a whim - YES

Yes

- ...annual out of pocket limits - YES

Which are more than many can afford.

- ...limits to annual premium raises - YES

I did not know this, I thought it was from scratch every year.

- ...every single other thing about the ACA - YES

No

Giantaxe

Even people on group policies should like this provision. Prior to the ACA a common scenario was to get seriously ill, lose your job, lose your group health insurance, etc.

Steerpike

Holy Crap! Unbelievable. But still ... throw money (legal fees) at fighting these crazy laws, surely a drop in the bucket compared to wall-to-wall TV ads ...

paddingtongreen

I live in a retirement community, there are enough of us that we have a polling place in the community, we do have to open the gates to some locals who live nearby. Anyway, we had a better than 75% turnout and the county had about 50%, perhaps because the office of Governor was on the ballot.

Referring to the Pelosi statement, it is always true, especially as the laws still have be implemented by regulations that decide on practical ways to achieve compliance but often seem to have little to do with the law as written.

Steerpike

Well duhh ... the whole point is Group Policies only benefited employees of companies, not the self-employed or unemployed. The possibility of 'easy' access to Health insurance (thanks to ACA) was a key factor in my deciding not to seek full-time employment but rather, go it alone with my own company ... something that Republicans should cheer!

sir_eccles

There's probably lots you don't know about the ACA.

Those other things you don't like such as making sure the insurance companies actually spend your premium on you more than on admin (80/20), free preventative care, free mammograms, free vaccines, free cholesterol tests, ........

scrubbedexpat099

I had the misfortune to work in the insurance industry.

1. Nothing is free.

2. Pound or in this case dollar swapping is silly.

Insurance is not the appropriate method of dealing with routine costs whatever the scenario. Which probably covers at least half and probably a lot more of current spend.

But you have amply evidenced why the system can never be reformed. NHS has a sort of similar problem.

Mrs Danvers

Never mind. Perhaps the subsidies aren't "constitutional " anyway.

Supreme Court: Another Obamacare legal challenge - CNN.com