The American Spectator

Simon Templar| 11.8.11 @ 11:42PM

The good people of Ohio particularly the Republicans are dumb as a stump. The old and tired line and millions of commercials and ads touting that your house will burn down, cops will not come to your aid was churned endlessly on every medium if you voted no. There were ads on youtube.

The unions got their membership out in droves knowing full well that this is an election in Ohio that most people forget about and do not go to the polls. The republicans did essentially nothing, spent nothing, and said nothing to defend the legislative work they accomplished. The few ads on the radio were a complete joke. But does that surprise?

Aaron, I do not expect you to know this but do not buy that this represents the will of the people of Ohio. The ballot I have heard was a farce and written in the vaguest manner you could have written it in that literally did not even describe what the bill was about, it was one sentence. I would expect many really did not know what they were voting for or against. The word, collective bargaining, I have heard, was not even used and the bill to be repealed was just refered to as a bill and number.

Dai Alanye| 11.9.11 @ 12:50PM

I've lived in Ohio all mye life, and have been politically active most of the time. Here's the deal:

First, Ohio is "small c" conservative. That is, the good citizens tend to vote against change, in this case voting against a new employee bargaining law as well as a new health care law. Even though one NO and one YES were required most managed to figure it out. Right or wrong, these were thoughtful votes.

Second, John Kasich is a pathetic campaigner. He barely won election last year against a weak opponent, and although it was his baby, I noticed nothing significant or useful that he did to encourage passage of Issue Two.

That's all there is to it. Don't try to read any broader national message into these votes.

Mike| 11.8.11 @ 11:57PM

Nice spin, Aaron.

Can hardly wait until people understand what repealing Obamacare means: preexisting conditions not covered, caps on lifetime payments, and rescission of policies at the discretion of the insurance company.

Only a fool believes the "repeal and replace" lie of the GOP.

LC JB| 11.9.11 @ 12:25AM

Then I suppose most of us are fools. But maybe, just maybe we don't want the government in between us and our doctors. Obamacare is about the biggest pile of steaming horse manure ever devised and foisted on us. Look at the support for it in the polls. It isn't even close. The American people understand EXACTLY what it's all about and will continue to reject it given a chance. Just another socialist swindle from the SCOAMF polluting 1600 Pennsy.

Mike | 11.9.11 @ 8:40AM

LCJB,

No, you would rather have an insurance adjuster between you and your doctor. That person's job, of course, is to limit or deny you medical service so the company's profits soar, the CEO beomes obscenely wealthy and shareholders, including me, are happy.
By the way, the companies operating in a free market environment craved by the right would be excellent death panels.

buckeyeman| 11.9.11 @ 8:55AM

O, ignorant Mike! Insurance companies do not operate in a "free market". Your blessed government has showered special protection upon them that other businesses do not enjoy. ERISA and the McCarran-Fergusan Act are two main players although there are others. Try doing some research if you ever decide to actually know something about the subject (which I doubt).

Mike| 11.9.11 @ 11:06AM

buckeyeman,

If the insurance companies operated in a "free market" it would not negate a single thing I said.

Why do you think I support corporate welfare as you imply?

But again, buckeyeman, who do you want between you and your doctor and who do you want to serve on your death panel? Think the "free market" will retreat you kindly?

redpatch| 11.9.11 @ 1:02AM

Mike the only reason individuals need health insurance is due to the federal governments mingling in health care. If you look at stats showing health care compared to individual income going all the way back to the great depression you will see that as government expenditures on health care increased the cost of services rose in relation to income.

Most who oppose obama care do so because we do not wish to see more power given to the Federal Government. Many would like to see the insurance companies lose their power and dominance on the health care industries. But no positive change in the status quo will be achieved by doubling down on the policies that created the current state of affairs.

Furthermore by mandating coverage and regulating the industry to the extent it is you remove the power from the consumer. With the purchasing power removed from the consumer the doctors nor the hospitals now have to cater or strive to offer a reasonable value for the consumers money for it is not the consumer that is paying it is the insurance agency and government. Therefore it is the insurance company and the government that the health care industry cater to and it is based on their budgets that the health care industry set their prices.

Mike| 11.9.11 @ 11:11AM

Redpatch,
You wrote,"Mike the only reason individuals need health insurance is due to the federal governments mingling in health care." Uh, no, Redpatch. I need health insurance to cover against the cost of catastrophic illness and serious injury.

We can agree on the fact that our health care system, as currently constituted, is inefficient, costly and far from the best in the world.

beebop2| 11.9.11 @ 5:15AM

I don't know how magical thinking works, but there is a certain lack of personal responsibility in your statements. "Pre-existing" conditions are a fact of life. It happens in used cars, homes that have been owned by others -- in fact, expecting "guarantees" in life in exchange for near complete government interference flies in the face of what it is to be an American. You are happy with surrendering your personal freedom to the bogey man of "pre-existing." I am here to tell you that I would rather Live Free or Die than be the slave you are content to become. But? Hey. That's just me.

vb| 11.9.11 @ 8:30AM

Doesn't the pre-existing condition become relevant when a person loses or changes his job and thus his group health insurance benefit? If health insurance were completely personal, there wouldn't be a need to change insurers because you could take your policy with you from job to job, from state to state.

Simon Templar| 11.9.11 @ 11:47AM

So, Mike, what is it? We can choose a 2000 page piece of legislation that I am sure you do not have a clue what is in it to repealing that pandoras box and replacing it with something that actually fixes the issue.

See the rub comes down to this, Mike. You shoot your mouth off about things, like most liberals, that you know literally nothing about and you trust a government that has repeatedly cheated, wasted your money, stole and misappropriated funds, allows billions of fraudulent claims, and mismanged a health care program that is now on the verge of collaspe. But, hey, you got your orders and talking points and that is all that matters.

Like a good useful idiot, you are always there. You know the who the good guys are and who are the bad, Obama and Biden told you.

Did you ever stop for a moment and THINK that we conservatives would want better coverage, lower premiums, more choice, and less insurance discrimination. Do you think we just like to pay tens of thousands a year for a family policy and worry if we will not be renewed the following years? Do you think we like the ways things are now? Think, before it is too late, Mikey.

See, many of us actually have read and studied this bill and understand exactly what it is leading to, what its intentions are, and what it will do to this nation. I suggest you drop the brainwashing talking points for at least an hour and just for giggles go out and start researching the topic and just see what you may learn.

Interested conservative| 11.9.11 @ 1:18AM

Three largely separate things to keep in mind here: 1) Health, 2) Health Insurance, and 3) pre-paid Health Care. Sure, they're all related, but most of us don't recognize the extent to which the federal govt. has driven all the way from #3 into #1. The Insurers got trampled in the middle.

beebop2| 11.9.11 @ 5:10AM

I am in Ohio. My sister is a Cleveland school teacher whose husband works for the Social Security Administration. I don't begrudge them their three foreign cars (for two drivers), suburban home and schools for their two daughters. I don't begrudge them their hopes for a good future. But they certainly are more a part of the 1% than the 99.

I am happy the election is over as the acrimony stirred up by the Trumkaites was pervasive and you could not turn on the television, radio or even your computer without the alternating whining and angry lies. The levies were decidedly defeated. There will be no more money. So? The unions will grow smaller since their will be layoffs and services will shrink ... Meanwhile I hope that the legislature will take this up in pieces and eventually bring the unions to the table.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.9.11 @ 7:16AM

Now, it has to paid for.

Let's see what happens when the layoffs start.

axbucxdu| 11.9.11 @ 12:46PM

"...Now, it has to paid for."

...and will be. Most likely by another slush (stimulus) transfer from Sammy Swindle.

LarryK| 11.9.11 @ 9:18AM

The real loser is the Ohio citizens. A few weekends ago my wife and I were in Columbus for a weekend visit. At the hotel, there was a wedding reception and the guests were mingling around the hotel's bar. I could not help but hear a conversation from a group of people discussing Issue 2. The loudest of the group was repeating the "Vote no on Issue 2" commercial talking points and all the sycophants nodded their heads in agreement except one man. When one of the loudmouths started to berate the gentleman for his silent non-agreement, he finally broke his silence. The man was a government official from one of Ohio's mid-size cities. He plainly stated that his cities case for being in favor of keeping Issue 2. My wife and I, not being part of that group, listened intently as he made his case point by point. In a nut shell, he said, the money to continue paying government employee union wages and benefits simply is not there and the State of Ohio cannot bail out the cities. His final nail in the coffin to the Issue 2 supports was the commercial that the Vote No on Issue 2 ran continuously. The commercial is the grandmother that said her granddaughter was saved by firemen and if Issue 2 is not repealed, then her granddaughter would be at risk. The man stated that if Issue 2 goes down, the city will be issuing layoff notices to 20 % of their union employees, including firemen (putting the granddaughter at risk), to balance the budget or they could raise taxes on an already overtaxed citizenry.
I then chimed in, "Liberalism always generates the opposite of its stated intent!" And the man said, "Amen to that brother."

Al Adab| 11.9.11 @ 10:27AM

The lesson to be learned here is that unions and liberty are not mutually exclusive. Unions have a valuable role to fill in our economic life. Yes, as with other institutions they can become overly self-serving. Nonetheless, support for unions and collective bargaining does not put one at odds with opposition to statist mandates and overbearing, overreaching government acts. In fact, the unions may serve in many instances to protect their members from just such government arrogance. Conservatives need to grasp their allies issue by issue wherever they may be found.

David T| 11.9.11 @ 11:16AM

The unions in this instance were civil service unions representing teachers, police, firefighters, bureaucrats, etc. A case can be made for private-sector unions, but civil service unions should not be allowed because of the power they have to take the private holdings of taxpayers. In other words, civil service unions are unconstitutional.

Simon Templar| 11.9.11 @ 11:29AM

They do when they are public employees. They forge a conflict of interest and power that can literally overthrow a Republican form of government and corrupt it as it has in this case.

They set themselves against the broad electorate's interest and corrupt the means by which that electorate achieves its proper representation relative to taxation.

They are a recent abberation brought into the mix that has certainly served its interest to the point that this nation is on the verge of a government and economic collaspe. They are the single greatest factor in maintaining and promoting endless larger government.
The schools are a disaster and they are also the single greatest factor in their dysfunction.

They do not belong in the public sector. The private sector, perhaps. This is where they can possibly do the best good and set a balance of power between various interest in the workplace, industry, and government.

Respectfully,
ST

Paul McGrath| 11.9.11 @ 12:22PM

I couldn't have said it better. You'll note that the left never refers to them as "government employees," or "government employee unions," they instead refer to them as "workers," or "unions."

This is certainly a bit of a setback, but we have made progress from a couple of years ago, when this issue wasn't even on the radar.

It is disheartening to consider that the millions and millions of dollars unions have now spent in Wisconsin and Ohio alone came from the taxpayer.

steve in ohio| 11.9.11 @ 12:26PM

We're alot like West Virginia--socially conservative, but economically liberal. I do think our purple state will be red next year.

LarryK| 11.9.11 @ 12:44PM

"We're alot like West Virginia-"
Please Steve, At least Ohioans don't say
"I seen?

Dai Alanye| 11.9.11 @ 12:56PM

Half the people in Ohio are first or second-generation refugees from Pennsylvania and West Virginia.