An American-lead war with Iran is unlikely, but not one started by the Israelis. Bibi and Barrack are dead set on it happening, and they may be right from the Israeli perspective. From the American one, however, it's probably more trouble than it's worth. I mean, it's not impossible to just wait out the mullah's regime, which is loathed by the young people and anachronistic in a post-Arab Spring world where dictatorial regimes are being overthrown. Iran's presidential election is only ten months away. Hopefully there's something like the Green Movement again, and this time Obama or Romney won't ignore them.

Iran's Islamic Republic is the inspiration behind the 'Arab Spring'. I don't why people think the Green Movement will bring any change to Iran, as Mousavi is not exactly an unknown entity in Iran, and was previously a high official for the Islamic Republic. Iran is far too fragmented to call a dictatorship, and elections are taken too seriously and are too competitive for that to be an accurate designation. Nor are 'dictatorships' anarchronistic when you consider all the CIA's friends among the kingdoms of the Gulf, which are more medieval in their authoritarianism than Iran.

The Supreme Leader in Iran is too clever to have his regime collapse. He is skilled in playing both ends against the middle. And will use divisions between the conservative populists and liberals to stay in power. He has repeatedly swung back and forth between favoring one side or the other since the late 1980s. He'll likely throw a bone to the reformers in the next election, since relations have soured greatly between the band of mystics following Ahmadinejad and Khamanei.

Hi, sorry to butt in. This seems an interesting discussion (although I've only ready a couple of pages). As an European I struggle with some of the references and I would like to understand more. Are Obama's policies on healthcare that divisive and toxic? We have the NHS in Britain and it is something we are proud of so I can't really understand the objections to healthcare provision to those who cannot afford it. This is probably a simplictic view and I would like to know more if somebody could indulge me? I'm also wondering how relevant foreign policy is in US Elections? The coverage here of Romney's visit and the visit to Israel was not positive to say the least. Would that influence voters? Conversely Obama's profile here, with a few duff notes of course, remains pretty positive. Does the view from abroad have any bearing?

No, the policies are not divisive & toxic. When polled regarding the specifics of the rather conservative Affordable Healthcare Act (coverage of pre-existing conditions; allowing children up to age 26 stay on their parents insurance; discounts on prescription drugs for people not covered by Medicare), voters support them, and very few people think the healthcare system should remain as it is, which is essentially the GOP plan as of now. Ironically the most 'divisive' aspect of the bill, the individual mandate, was proposed by Republicans and conservative thinktanks like the Heritage Foundation not even half a decade ago. All of the major Republican candidates, including Romney who implemented a similar policy when Governor, are/were on record being in favor of the mandate as a 'market oriented reform' that enables hospitals to be able to stop having to pay for the uninsured.

The reason why the debate has appeared toxic is because of a heavily funded campaign by very rich opponents of the law to villify it specifically and Obama general. This influence has been made all the more obnoxious by the Supreme Court ruling which dismantled campaign finance laws.

As for international opinions of domestic candidates, they don't seem to matter much. Kerry effectively used that card in 2004 to criticize Bush and ran on foreign affairs, claiming Bush had alienated our allies and whatnot, didn't seem to have a great impact.
Usually foreign affairs, if it has an impact, is when the Republicans run on a "Democrats are wimpy on defense" campaign.

Romney, Romney, ra ra ra ra Ryan !!

Yeah...there is NOTHING divisive and toxic about Left-wing policies. TAKING things that are earned by one group of citizens and giving them - no strings attached - to another group of citizens isn't AT ALL divisive an toxic....<rolls eyes...>

Apparently, you idiots on the left have never heard of a dictionary. Dividing America into two groups -- the makers from whom you take, and the recievers to whom you give -- is, by definition, DIVISIVE.

NExt, telling the recievers of other's wealth that you are not at all at fault for your own situation, and further, as Obama recently did by executive fiat, telling a group, for example, that you don't even need to try to work anymore...is, by diefinition TOXIC, in that is destroys any desire or will to work in the group that gets to sit on its collective lasy ass and just take money from others.

Moron....

Here is the real question: Do Putin and friends *live* by their beliefs? Do they give all of their excess wealth to those in need?

The answer...will be deafening silence, or loud equivocating....or lies...

Romney & Ryan , putting the Right back into -wing politics !!

"in that is destroys any desire or will to work in the group that gets to sit on its collective lasy ass and just take money from others."

You mean like bankers and wall street traders? The Romneys of the world and their dividends and blind trusts? Oh wait, they're allowed to sit on their ass and collect money by doing nothing. Nobody can tax these 'job creators' or even midly regulate their lazy do-nothingness.

"Apparently, you idiots on the left have never heard of a dictionary"

You're a walking projection machine. You repeatedly fail to understand basic terms like socialism and how it is difference from welfare state policies.

"Do they give all of their excess wealth to those in need?"

LOL, I have negative net worth. Meanwhile you sit around during the workweek posting your caps locks conniptions, and manage to support children while doing so.

Bah, I hate it when conversations devolve into two sides shouting at each other.

Perhaps you're both right and wrong? Yes, bankers and hedge fund operators should be taxed the hell out of, and there needs to be some airtight tax reform in this country. However, handouts are not a good thing. So long as they are actively seeking work its fine to help them along, or if they were injured and are no longer able to work, some assistance should be given, but the mere status of being poor shouldn't mean you're given a freebie.

Thanks for the response Putin. Very interesting.

Krellin - surely taking money from one group to give to another is the basis of taxation? I contribute through my taxes to a number of things, some of which I profit from directly some only indirectly. By indirectly i mean the fact that resources are made available for education means other people's children are given a chance, resources for health improve others' health and wellbeing (and is available should I need it) and innumerable other aspects of society that require money.

Your point about it being a disincentive for some to work is fair to a point but I would also argue that without opportunity provided by good quality education some are hamstrung in the opportunites to which they have access. I, for example, earned a scholarship thanks to the support of my family and I now have a good job and I contribute tax money. Without my parents, supportive teachers and others who have given me a hand I don't know if I would have succeeded.

As a aside I don't appreciate insults in response to a simple request for information. Putin, no matter what you think of his politics, responded with information, you just went off half cocked. I'm not looking for a fight champ, I just wanted information about the discussion you were having.

Dr. Alimantado, contra putin's response, Obama's policies on healthcare have been very divisive and toxic, yes -- to the extent that one of our most liberal states elected a right-moderate senator to try to stop it when they were going through, and Obama's party was soundly shellacked in the midterm Congressional elections, largely on the basis of having passed them. That seems essentially the definition of divisive and toxic, to me. (Well, toxic, anyway. They actually kind of brought people together, so maybe they weren't that divisive).

Obama's party was so "toxic" and "divisive" that they did everything but ask Olympia Snowe if she needed a stone massage in order to get moderate Republicans on board. Obama's problem was thinking the Republicans wanted to do anything other than obstruct, and he spent over a year trying to get a bill passed. If this is not an indication of a willing to work with the other side, what is? Bush didn't do any of this with any policy, and I'm sure people like Semck didn't whine about it. The Democrats losing the midterms is not really that surprising, considering the state of the economy, the fact that ruling parties always lose midterm elections, the paralysis in government causes by Republican opposition, and the fact that nobody had seen the benefits of the reforms yet. Furthermore, turnout was low & I already mentioned the money point. 2010 was the first Citizens United elections.

I didn't say the party was toxic, Putin. I said the policy was.

"right-moderate senator to try to stop it when they were going through"

Against a poor candidate, when anti-incumbency was at a fever pitch because of the poor state of the economy. Meanwhile overwhelming numbers of MA voters support MA's version of Obamacare, so figure that out.

The policy isn't toxic. It was ripped from the Heritage Foundation. Romney implemented it at the state level. It was as bi-partisan a reform as you could possibly concoct. Republicans just didn't want to pass anything Obama proposed. Admit it.

Yeah, but it was Massachusetts, Putin. It takes more than all that for Mass to turn out for a Republican. Exit polls also showed that health care was the driving issue there.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31708.html

"The policy isn't toxic. It was ripped from the Heritage Foundation."

Wait, so something can't be politically toxic if it's supported by Heritage? What a charming idea! I hope you'll keep it in mind in the coming months.

But my claim was not that the mandate didn't have bipartisan origins -- it did -- but that it ws politically toxic -- which it was. What I mean by this is that the electorate loathed it and it caused massive electoral problems for those who supported it.

Sorry, I missed the last part:

"Republicans just didn't want to pass anything Obama proposed. Admit it."

No, I really think they hated the bill. Not everything Heritage (or Romney) does stands up under analysis. There was particular outrage, certainly, at the idea that there would be a massive overhaul of the health care system, including substantial new federal spending, in the middle of an economic crisis and with debt piling up. Had this bill been introduced by a Democratic President in the economy of 2006, then it would still have been opposed, but possibly not as urgently.

So it had a bi-partisan origin, and was supported by far-right conservative thinktanks & Romney himself, yet it was 'politically divisive' and 'toxic'. Goodness, you're making less sense than ever.

"Wait, so something can't be politically toxic if it's supported by Heritage? What a charming idea! I hope you'll keep it in mind in the coming months."

Uh, if you want to paint this as some kind of partisan policy that was 'divisive', then yeah, the fact that the ideas came from Republicans to begin with belies all that. Nice try. Republicans were on board with this just a couple of years before the law was passed. But the Obama election changed everything. Mitch McConnell is on record saying their number one goal was defeating Obama. Congressmen called healthcare Obama's "Waterloo". They didn't care about governing whatsoever.

It's hard to imagine a healthcare reform more meak and modest than a policy which gives insurance companies tons of news clients and preserves en toto the privatized healthcare system we have.

"There was particular outrage, certainly, at the idea that there would be a massive overhaul of the health care system, including substantial new federal spending, in the middle of an economic crisis and with debt piling up."

Except actually the bill saves money and reduces the debt. Congressional Budget Office has stated that there is $455 billion of savings from Medicare in the Affordable Care Act. But don't let facts get in the way of your Republican hackery.

"What I mean by this is that the electorate loathed it and it caused massive electoral problems for those who supported it."

They 'loathed' it so much that 75% of the public support the various individual provisions within it, the mandate excepted. At most you can say support for the overall bill was divided pretty evenly and within the margin of error.

"Exit polls also showed that health care was the driving issue there.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31708.html"

By exit polls you mean a poll put out by a Republican polling firm with *ties to the healthcare industry*. Good one. Slick.

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which responded to Senate passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by stating that "the bill that was passed by the Senate today is counterproductive, does little to lower the cost of health care, and it is not reform. It implements crippling new taxes, and hurts our ability to create jobs at the worst possible time for the economy."
Blue Cross-Blue Shield, which responded to House passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act by stating that "the bill creates a new government-run plan that jeopardizes affordability and access to coverage for the 160 million people who receive their benefits through their employers today; makes health coverage much more expensive, particularly for individuals and small employers; and represents a massive federal takeover of state regulatory functions."
The American Health Care Association, which has advocated against Medicare cuts in health care reform legislation."

That last part is a list of Fabrizio's clients.

The fact is *there was no exit polling* for the MA race.

http://www.indyposted.com/9218/no-exit-polling-for-massachusetts-senate-race-today/

It seems the subject is a very passionate one. A good thing in my opinion. Passion in politics is underrated.

I'm still unclear of why the healthcare bill was so unpopular. There is the response from Krellin about taking money from the welath generators and giving it to others but, as I say above, you can't have a taxation system without some kind of redistribution of wealth. The abondonment of entire sections of society to poverty will, sooner or later, have a negative effect on the quality of life of the rest of society and the provision of tax revenue for education/health/social services etc. works to alleviate this. There is also the consideration that every individual from the poorer 10-20% who does go into education and finds employment becomes a contributor rather than a receiver and surely this is a good thing?

There are also references to cost. How much would the overhaul have cost? How does this compare to the social and fiscal cost of denying healthcare to those who cannot afford it? Is the cost offset to a degree by providing employment to healthcare professionals who, in turn, will then contribute tax?

Most of the replies I've seen have been partisan and rather lacking in information or statistics. Surely if this policy is abhorrent or as welcome as people claim then costs/benefits should be common knowlege? Or am I being naive in expecting some kind of data in the middle of a political shouting match?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/20/news/economy/cbo_reconciliation/index.htm?iid=EL

I did actually provide stats, but here.

"The whole package will cost roughly $940 billion over 10 years to provide expanded insurance coverage, according to CBO.

But overall, the plan could reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first 10 years. And over the following decade, the CBO projected, health reform could reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion, although the agency stressed that such long-term projections are highly uncertain. (Deficit experts offer a fiscal reality check.)

The estimated long-term deficit reduction comes mainly from more than $500 billion in savings from health programs like Medicare, and $438 billion in new tax revenue."

"How does this compare to the social and fiscal cost of denying healthcare to those who cannot afford it?"

Good point. The opponents never bother to explain how they expect hospitals to continue footing the bill for the uninsured.

"Uh, if you want to paint this as some kind of partisan policy that was 'divisive', then yeah, the fact that the ideas came from Republicans to begin with belies all that. Nice try."

I said it was toxic more than divisive, and I already said it had bipartisan origins. Read much?

Alimantado -- apart from cost, it simply goes against the American ethos in various ways. (Or at least -- less the clash with putin multiply -- so feel its many opponents). Forcing people to purchase something reduces their freedom. Forcing them to pay for others to have it -- quite an expensive item, incidentally -- screws up incentives, threatens the quality of health care, puts (necessary) rationing in public rather than private hands, and provides rationale for further future government intervention into private lives. (The government can reasonably start telling you what to eat, for example, if it has to pick up the tab when you get heart disease).

This is obviously a mere overview.

I'm sure you as a Brit would protest the "quality" issue, but I'd say our systems excel in different things. Anecdotally from experience (I have British relatives) I can assert that wait times in the British system can be far worse than anything that would be tolerated here, as in some cases can outcomes. Admittedly, aspects of the British system work very well. I would be more detailed if I didn't have to be up in 6 hours. Since I do, I'll have to defer such luxuries as statistics. I hope you understand.

"The fact is *there was no exit polling* for the MA race."

An amusing assertion, since I have provided you with exit polls. You're right of course that they were by a Republican pollster.