[DiabloD3]

If you had told me that would be today's headline at any point over the past decade, I'm not sure I would have believed you.

If this works out, the President has another thing to add to his list of "things no President before me achieved".

[twoodfin]

Well, Bill Clinton got a nuclear deal with North Korea.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework

[tootie]

That agreement put up seals and cameras on their existing reactor to prevent them from reprocessing without us knowing. When W Bush began laying his case to invade Iraq, NK saw that compliance with inspections wasn't a guarantee of safety so they broke the seals. Bush and the UN knew immediately and simply declined to act. Opting instead to pursue mythical WMDs in Iraq.

[DiabloD3]

Yeah, and that didn't quite worked out as planned, although I still view it as a positive step forwards.

[thescrewdriver]

Out of curiosity, what else would be on that list?

[ojbyrne]

Getting rid of the silly Cuba embargo.

[Tomte]

Nationwide Universal Healthcare.

[briandear]

There is no universal healthcare in the U.S. There's a tax penalty if you don't buy insurance. There are subsidies for buying insurance, but no fundamental change unless higher premiums and higher taxes are considered fundamental change.

[Retric]

Pre existing conditions are no longer a thing with Heath insurance, that's minimal universal healthcare.

[adventured]

How can you claim universal healthcare, with 12% [1] of the population not covered by any form of health insurance?

The US system has very little in common with European style universal healthcare. To say nothing of the extreme cost most Americans still pay for their health insurance, or the bankruptcies that are still overwhelming in the system.

Universal healthcare that bankrupts millions of people? That's an inherently ridiculous premise.

[1] http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/13/news/economy/obamacare-unins...

[mikeash]

The US system is just mandatory national insurance, which is also the model found in some European countries, for example Switzerland. Single-payer is not the only way to achieve universal healthcare, nor even the only way it's done in Europe.

Maybe it doesn't work as well, but that's down to the details, not because it's inherently different in how it works.

[Retric]

Universal! = free or total.

If you test positive for AIDS you can after the fact buy health insurance long before you need significant medical care. That implies a defacto basic level of coverage for long term chronic conditions which is by far the largest issue.

PS: As to the 11.9% figure, that does not include large numbers of people with significant access to health care that’s not based on insurance. EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White_Care_Act 'improve availability of care for low-income, uninsured and under-insured victims of AIDS and their families.'

The VA also provides a lot of free healthcare for people without insurance. Not to mention prisoners getting free healthcare.

[adventured]

The US does not have universal healthcare.

Further, Obama wasn't responsible for the ACA.

edit: if the US had universal healthcare, the US wouldn't have 30+ million people without health coverage today.

[knowaveragejoe]

Nevermind that it's a large step in that direction, I'm pretty sure it was his pen that signed it into law.

[adventured]

It was his pen, that was his biggest contribution to it. His involvement in crafting the legislation, and getting the necessary votes, was almost non-existent. It was the super majority Democratic Congress that was responsible for making the ACA happen. Both in terms of wrangling the votes together, and reaching the countless compromises necessary to get it through by the slim margin it ultimately passed by.

[vasilipupkin]

You are focused on the mechanics of how it got passed. But it was clearly his major priority and wouldn't have happened without him being in office. So, I apologize, but your statement seems at best completely inaccurate to me

[ScottBurson]

> Obama wasn't responsible for the ACA.

Yeah, Mitt Romney really doesn't get the credit he deserves.

[willismichael]

Anecdote here - I know people who used to be able to afford to go to the doctor, but now they are paying so much in premiums that they can't afford to pay the deductible (also significantly increased), so they don't go to the doctor anymore.

[dragontamer]

Obama didn't do that, and I don't think I would support ACA if it were universal healthcare.

ACA provides tax-deduction bonuses to people who purchase "high-deductable" plans to encourage people to actually _look_ at the bills they get from the doctor, instead of thinking "My Insurance pays for this anyway. I don't care".

That's... about it. Granted, these high-deductable plans have various standards (no preexisting conditions) on them, but at the end of the day, its a mechanism to attempt to bring the free market back into the health care system.

Health care remains broken, but at least it is more obvious to consumers now.

[briandear]

Have you read the Iran deal? The Iranians were happy about it, this it likely wasn't a good deal for the rest of us. The Iranians can't be trusted. If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution; instead those protestors were executed, tortured or imprisioned. Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup. Honestly, Obama doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to foreign policy. He sort of waddles along weakening the U.S. position whenever possible.

[toyg]

> The Iranians can't be trusted.

National stereotypes, pillars of pragmatic diplomacy ever since 2000 BC and the clear mark of logical thinkers the world over.

> If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution

How do you know he didn't? Because he didn't send in bombers to "support demonstrations"?

> Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup

... when the alternative would have been much more Iran-friendly; yeah, how strange, right? Honestly, how do you make these random mental associations?

> He sort of waddles along weakening the U.S. position whenever possible.

A comprehensive Iran-US 'peace deal' (or even a strategic partnership going forward) would immensely strengthen US standing around the world, dramatically reducing tensions in the Middle East and providing a balance to the uncritical reliance on Saudi Arabia and Turkey that so much pain has brought since the '90s (from Al Qaeda to IS). So uhm, there is that.

But yeah, I agree that it weakens fearmongers' positions, both in US, Israel and Iran.

[mason240]

>> The Iranians can't be trusted.

>National stereotypes, pillars of pragmatic diplomacy ever since 2000 BC and the clear mark of logical thinkers the world over.

The OP clearly means the theocratic regime, not the Iranian people themselves.

[toyg]

Large parts of that theocratic regime are elected.

[AnimalMuppet]

... after controlling who can run for office.

If you let me select both the Republican and Democratic candidates, I'll happily let the people vote however they want.

[toyg]

That's exactly how large donors think in the US.

[tome]

> > If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution

> How do you know he didn't? Because he didn't send in bombers to "support demonstrations"?

Come on, it's quite clear that Obama was very low-key during the Green Revolution protests, much lower-key than he needed to be.

[toyg]

In a country where US = "bad", public US support would have been hindrance, not help. We don't know what was going on behind the scenes. Note also that the de-facto sponsor was Rafsanjani, somebody a bit too skillful to "marry unconditionally".

Obama is not a saint (he relies on the same corporate interests and even the same personnel a Clinton would), but it's hard to fault him for his moves regarding Iran.

[rayiner]

Revolution is almost always a bad thing for liberal democracy. See, e.g., the Arab Spring, the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Had those protestors been successful, there is a significant possibility would have been co-opted by elements that executed, tortured, and imprisoned a lot more people. See, e.g., the French Revolution.

Iran, in contrast, is well on its way to having a functional democracy. The power of the ayatollah wanes every year, and every new generation of young Iranians is more liberal than before. The best thing the U.S. can do is be friendly and wait for that to play out. Because if there is any hope for another democracy in the Middle East, it's in a place where people are already accustomed to the benefits of having a functioning government with significant and growing public participation.

[amalag]

Are the republicans really that dumb that if they see Iran telling their people "It is a great deal for us" they think they are telling them the truth.

Guess what, they have to spin deals to their public too.

[gadders]

On the negative side he can put Benghazi and the rise of ISIS.

[mason240]

I don't know if capitulating to theocratic regime in their attempts at nuclear proliferation (which will likely set off a regional nuclear arms race) is something to be proud of.

[evgen]

Well, since the US didn't capitulate and the regional nuclear arms race was already in progress I guess it goes back into the things to be proud of column; although, really the only ones who are upset with this deal are hardliners in Iran and Israel and the fact that they are upset is a stronger indicator that this is "a good thing"(tm) than any punditry we will hear over the next few weeks.

[ceejayoz]

Frankly, the theocratic regime with attempts at nuclear proliferation we should be afraid of is Saudi Arabia. They'd likely buy bombs from Pakistan in short order if they decided they wanted one.

If Israel having nukes hasn't set off a nuclear arms race I'm really confused as to how Iran not having them is supposed to.