Democrats Didn't Win

[Dr. Shane]

The Democrats didn't get what they wanted - not even close. The Democrats wanted a public option. What they got was more like an insurance company bail-out. The health-care reform passed mandates every American to buy health-care insurance from a private insurance company. That is not what the Democrats wanted.

The plan was for the conference committee to come up with a new health-care bill while trying to reconcile the differences between the original House bill and the Senate bill. The election of Scott Brown trashed that plan.

The only option was for the House to pass the Senate bill so that there would be no conference committee. The reconciliation bill that was passed is a far cry from what the Democrats would have wanted to do in the conference committee.

It looks like the Republicans were successful in preventing the Democrats from doing a lot of what the Democrats had hoped for.

[Dr. Shane]

Let's think about it for a minute. Their form of universal health care is to pass a law mandating everyone buy health insurance. In the same way we can have universal home ownership by passing a law that everyone must buy a home. Wouldn't that be great? Then every American would own their own home.

[Woody]

Universal Home Ownership (UHO) is next on their agenda.

Obama has a long history of supporting UHO.

U all better be aware or my HO (Humble Opinion).

[bonnie]

The Democrats didn't get what they wanted - not even close. The Democrats wanted a public option. What they got was more like an insurance company bail-out. The health-care reform passed mandates every American to buy health-care insurance from a private insurance company. That is not what the Democrats wanted.

[Dr. Shane]

The Democrats will need 60 votes in the Senate to get a public option. I don't see that happening. If I am wrong I will apologize. If you are wrong, you can apologize to me.

What the Democrats passed isn't that impressive. The news media is on the Obama bandwagon and are making a big deal out of it. I am impressed that Obama was able to get this passed. I am just not impressed with the legislation itself. It took a lot - including a naked Chief of Staff chasing congressmen down in the Congressional gym showers. If President Bush had sent a naked Karl Rove into the Congressional gym showers he may have gotten Social Security reform passed.

[bonnie]

The Democrats will need 60 votes in the Senate to get a public option. I don't see that happening. If I am wrong I will apologize. If you are wrong, you can apologize to me.

What the Democrats passed isn't that impressive. The news media is on the Obama bandwagon and are making a big deal out of it. I am impressed that Obama was able to get this passed. I am just not impressed with the legislation itself. It took a lot - including a naked Chief of Staff chasing congressmen down in the Congressional gym showers. If President Bush had sent a naked Karl Rove into the Congressional gym showers he may have gotten Social Security reform passed.

I have no intention of apologizing for believing we will get the public option. It may not be this week,this month but it is coming. Nor do I really care for one coming from you.

For a beginning it is quite impressive. Especially covering pre-existing conditions and "children" up to age 26.

Had my sons wanted to sponge off of our insurance policy I would have dropped it rather than comply.

Any able bodied 26 that cannot purchase insurance of his own when he is in the cheapest age group is not much of an adult.

[Dr. Shane]

Praise God for legislation like this. It may not be too significant, nor is it without flaws but it does have some great things in it like covering pre-existing conditions, covering adult children up to age 26 and requiring employers to provide health insurance for employees. Those are all wonderful things and give us great reason to celebrate.

[bonnie]

Praise God for legislation like this. It may not be too significant, nor is it without flaws but it does have some great things in it like covering pre-existing conditions, covering adult children up to age 26 and requiring employers to provide health insurance for employees. Those are all wonderful things and give us great reason to celebrate.

Don't you just love it. Don't carry insurance and wait for a health issue. Hope to purchase it they pay thru the nose,at least till the public option goes into effect.Then happily they will be the recipient of the government compassion and efficiency.

The one positive I see in this is the employers. Several of the small business owners here are waiting for this to become settled. Then their employee's are being dumped on "big daddy".Far cheaper to pay the 8% penalty.

My fondest hope is our denomination practises this same frugal approach and dumps denominational employee's as fast as possible on "big daddy" and the public option.

This is another of Obama pontificating..... pre-existing conditions, covering adult children up to age 26 to call these 26 year olds adult is a exaggeration. Aside from that if they have been insured up to age 21 they are already covered for pre-existing condition while insuring themselves.

Calling those that demand daddy's care adults is not accurate. They are immature children that have no idea what it is to stand on their own two feet.

[Guest]

Shane you seem to be suffering from a total lack of any real insight. To be forced by law to buy a product, any product, is unconstitutional at best. This couldn't have come at a worse time. Just when unemployment is the highest it's ever been in 60-70 years, and employers are already afraid to hire people. Now they are going to be forced to provide insurance for their employees. Now they will have to think twice as hard if they really need that new employee or not. All this bill does is compound the economic problem and make it worse. To praise God for this, is to assume that He's the one behind it. And what a wild and assuming assumption that is. God is not that short sighted, and I'm pretty sure that God want's this to remain a free country as long as possible. But here you are praising God because you have just had a little more of your freedom taken away. I find that amazing.

[karl]

In the same way we can have universal home ownership by passing a law that everyone must buy a home. Wouldn't that be great? Then every American would own their own home.

We already tried that through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and we tanked the world's economy.

At least you're consistent, Shane.

[Dr. Shane]

Shane you seem to be suffering from a total lack of any real insight. To be forced by law to buy a product, any product, is unconstitutional at best. This couldn't have come at a worse time. Just when unemployment is the highest it's ever been in 60-70 years,

[Guest]

It has absolutely nothing to do with what the laborer is worthy of. If small businesses can't afford to do it, then the economy is only going to get worse and worse. This bill is a giant behemoth economy killer. And there is NOTHING good about that.

[Dr. Shane]

It is no different than the minimum wage. If a small business cannot afford to pay minimum wage they are not going to hire either. That doesn't mean we abolish minimum wage. Providing health-care insurance for employees is now part of the cost of doing business just like providing worker's compensation insurance is. If a company can't afford to do it they need to close their doors and go into a business where they can earn enough money to pay their employees just compensation.

[Guest]

That is my whole point. Many businesses will be closing their doors because of this. I don't see how you think that is a good thing. Have you heard about the Caterpiller company? (not a small business) It is going to cost them 100 million dollars the first year. Do you think that is good for the economy? The economy booms when businesses can thrive. You are obviously not looking at the big picture. But then most liberals don't.

[Dr. Shane]

Well, I am not a liberal. I am a moderate. I am very much a big picture person. Every time minimum wage is raised it increases unemployment at least in the short term. That doesn't mean we never increase minimum wage.

Yes, some business are going to fail. Those are weak businesses. These types of changes weed out the weak in the business world. Eventually those weak business will be replaced with stronger ones. In the long run, we will all be better off.

The laborer is worthy of his hire. That means providing the laborer with health-care insurance. That is a good thing.

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow.

[Guest]

Moderate is just another name for a namby pamby who sits on the fence and knows he can't call himself a conservative, but doesn't want to be called a liberal. Even though it's the liberal policies that make him happy. By saying that you do look at the big picture, you are only fooling yourself. And I guess you have that right, but you're not fooling me. That bill trampled all over our constitution in more ways than I'm going to name. And either you don't even know it, or you don't care, Mr. big picture.

[Woody]

I'm a conservative and proud of it.

[Guest]

Good for you Woody.

[Dr. Shane]

Actually, moderates are thinking people that look at each issue separately. Moderates are not kool-aid drinkers. Moderates decide elections. In '88 I voted for Bush. '92 Perot. '96 Perot. '00 Bush. '04 Bush. '08 Obama. This year I will be voting to re-elect our Republican governor. I am undecided regarding the re-election of our Democrat Congressman.

[Woody]

Are you having troubles?

Sounds like mass confusion.

And btw ... I wouldn't be going around admitting that you voted for Obama. What a shame.

[Guest]

What ever you say. As long as you believe it, I guess that's all that matters. From the looks of your voting record, you don't seem to have a very good grasp on politics. Both times you voted for perot, all you did was vote for the democrat. And if it's the so called moderates who decide elections, why did perot loose both times?

[Dr. Shane]

if it's the so called moderates who decide elections, why did perot loose both times?

[Dr. Shane]

you don't seem to have a very good grasp on politics.

I started out in college as a political science major. I have worked on three congressional campaigns and one state senate campaign. It was my congressional connections that helped expedite getting my wife a fiancee visa to come to the US. I currently write a political commentary for a local newspaper. So, I know a little something about politics but I certainly do have a lot to learn.

[Guest]

Yes I knew the answer when I asked the question. I knew it before the election, which is why I didn't vote for perot. Now you know the answer because of hindsight.

The last question:

if it's the so called moderates who decide elections, why did perot? loose both times?

Was to get you to think about your statement that moderates decide elections.

[Dr. Shane]

Bill Clinton won because more moderates voted for either him or Perot. Bush lost because he didn't get enough moderates to vote for him. That is the same reason Bob Dole lost. Moderates decide elections. Winning elections is all about winning the most moderates.

That said, the conservatives have the advantage because there are more conservatives than liberals. About 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservatives while only about 20% identify themselves as liberals. The other 40% fall into the moderate category. A conservative candidate only needs to peel off a little more than 25% of those moderates to win while liberal candidates need to peel off over 75% of those moderates to win.