[quote name='bic']The Iowa senate election was a big win regardless if you mention it or not and I would've conceded that fact had to posted it. If I was a sore loser like some others in this thread I could have easily whined about how the dem outspent the rep. 3 to 1 and had a huge advantage. Not me. Good win for the dems.
However, you're being disingenuous about the mississippi race and the healthcare mandate vote in ohio.
The office of state governor changing hands from dem to republican won't effect policy? That's just bull. Regardless of how conservative the dem running was, it was a huge win for the republican party just as any state governor race is, and has national implications like that of the 2010 midterms. Republicans are winning positions of power all over the country. It is amazing to see how low the republican party was in popularity after bush left office, to where it is now. It was toxic. Now, thanks to the current administration, people flock to them.[/QUOTE]
If you feel I am being disingenuous, so be it. I didn't feel I was however you have every right to be pissed about what I did or did not post, as pointless as that is. But c'est la vie.
Secondly not sure which governor seat changed hands? If you are referring to Mississippi race, the change was from Haley Barbour, a republican, to Bryant, a republican who fund raised 3 times as much as the the Dem. Please clarify if this is the race you are talking about or another one.
Lastly if you want to talk about policy implications, I think last night showed one thing. Most people are concerned with jobs and not necessarily parties, although i am sure a lot of people still vote along them. No last night showed that most people are sick of Dems feeble attempts in the jobs category and how they aren't listening to the people, what ever that may entail. But also that republicans are ignoring the people and the people are getting mad. They tried to shoe horn moral conservatism along with their fiscal and were blatantly shown that right now the voters will not go for it. Not that the dems have made independents and flock towards the gop, although I am sure some have.
[quote name='hostyl1']How many of these "most people" are people that pre-PPACA had access and means to buy insurance but for whatever reason elected not to?
All the research would suggest that this number is very small. People generally *want* to have health insurance and when access is available and affordable, they get the insurance. For these people, the 'individual mandate' is moot as they already have the required insurance.
Now if these people who are already in compliance with the PPACA are simply morally opposed to paying for (subsidizing) the care of others, I'd argue that this too is, at best moot, as every Emergency Room in the USA has a sign that says that any patient is entitled to 'stabilizing care' regardless of ability to pay. However, the hospital/doctor costs still need to be paid. Who pays those? The people with insurance/personal means to pay healthcare costs. So it doesnt really matter.
At least with the PPACA there is the *chance* of the reduction of healthcare costs (and more positive outcomes) with preventative care/early detection.
I urge anyone to watch
The Education of Dee Dee Ricks (showing this month on
HBO) to see the difference in care/outcomes between those having money/health care and those who do not (bonus: there are boobs).
tl;dr - People (generally) dont have health insurance because they cant afford it, not cause they dont want it.[/QUOTE]
I tend to really like your posts a lot. Thanks for dropping by here every few weeks or so.
_____________________________________________
Lastly this thread is a well over 2500 posts, shouldn't we make a part two by now? I always thought threads over 500 made the site run slow and thats why the OTT always killed them at 500. Although it is nice having a central thread to talk in.
ers on the right think that 51% of the vote means they can do whatever the 
