Healthcare Reform's Fate Lies in the Hands of Four Women

The fate of healthcare reform in the U.S. Senate seems to be resting with these four women: Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, and Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe.

This new bipartisan gang of four could be key to removing the heavily partisan debate dogging the legislation. Even though I only agree with two of them, I'm thrilled to see women's growing power in national politics. It's something we've all wanted for some time. As the New York Times reported:

When Senate Democratic leaders first went behind closed doors to complete the healthcare legislation, the only women in the room were either committee staff members or officials from the White House. The senators there — Harry Reid of Nevada, Max Baucus of Montana and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut—reflected the Senate's predominant history as an old-boys' club.

Bi-partisan gangs are the key to passage of most controversial legislation. Healthcare reform is certainly turning out to be highly partisan.

The fact that the gang this time is an all-girls club instead of an ol' boys club is historic. That especially since among the 100 U.S. Senate seats, only 17 are held by women. Who ever thought that this far after 1992, the so-called Year of the Woman in politics, the number of women in the Senate would still be so small? Progress is slow, achingly slow, when it comes to women's advancement.

Ha Ha.

It’s not “Healthcare Takeover”, or “Socialized Medicine”,

It’s “Healthcare Reform”.

Thanks US News ...

Would you rather go to the doctor here, or in Iran? Cuba? Russia? Britain?

Communists Agitators always give it a fake name -— “card check” not “Ban The Secret Union Vote!!!!” that it really is.

Think about it.

This alone tells you what kinda guy The Big Zero is !!!!!!!!!

"...This new bipartisan gang of four could be key to removing the heavily partisan debate dogging the legislation. Even though I only agree with two of them, I'm thrilled to see women's growing power in national politics. It's something we've all wanted for some time..."

What a steaming pantload.

Why should I be all bouncy and excited by legislators who have breasts and vaginas if they are going to work hard to pass the same crap that is going to bankrupt and enslave us?

Is this somehow better than having crappy legislation passed by someone with with a different type of genital?

thrilled to see women's growing power in national politics. It's something we've all wanted for some time.

Be speakin' for yourself, Erbe. Women and politics shouldn't often mix, unless creepy, creeping Nanny-state Socialism is the eventual goal.

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen."
—Ann Coulter, Oct. 2, 2007 New York Observer

Or as John Lott puts it, "...Yet, as suggestive as these facts are, we must still consider whether women's suffrage itself caused the growth in government, or did the government expand due to some political or social change that accompanied women's suffrage?

Fortunately, there was a unique aspect of women's suffrage that allows us to answer this question: Of the 19 states that had not passed women's suffrage before the approval of the 19th Amendment, nine approved the amendment, while the other 12 had suffrage imposed on them. If some unknown factor caused both a desire for larger government and women's suffrage, then government should have only grown in states that voluntarily adopted suffrage. This, however, is not the case: After approving women's suffrage, a similar growth in government was seen in both groups of states.

Women's suffrage also explains much of the federal government's growth from the 1920s to the 1960s. In the 45 years after the adoption of suffrage, as women's voting rates gradually increased until finally reaching the same level as men's, the size of state and federal governments expanded as women became an increasingly important part of the electorate.

But the battle between the sexes does not end there. During the early 1970s, just as women's share of the voting population was leveling off, something else was changing: The American family began to break down, with rising divorce rates and increasing numbers of out-of-wedlock births.

Over the course of women's lives, their political views on average vary more than those of men. Young single women start out being much more liberal than their male counterparts and are about 50 percent more likely to vote Democratic. As previously noted, these women also support a higher, more progressive income tax as well as more educational and welfare spending. But for married women this gap is only one-third as large. And married women with children become more conservative still. But for women with children who are divorced, they are suddenly about 75 percent more likely to vote for Democrats than single men. So as divorce rates have increased, due in large part to changing divorce laws, voters have become more liberal.

Women's suffrage ushered in a sea change in American politics that affected policies aside from taxes and the size of government. For example, states that granted suffrage were much more likely to pass Prohibition, for the temperance movement was largely dominated by middle-class women. Although the "gender gap" is commonly thought to have arisen only in the 1960s, female voting dramatically changed American politics from the very beginning." http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html

“”If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.”
—Ann Coulter, Oct. 2, 2007 New York Observer”

I’m still trying to find the study but it is my understanding that some political scientist went through the election results from 1920 to the present and found that if women had not voted there would have been no Democrat president during that period, with one exception (FDR).

“women should not be involved in politics or have political opinions. Because, if women are too stupid to vote, then they definitely are too stupid to have political opinions.”

Bitter sarcasm, HG, but, herd mentality factored in, too often true. As Mr. Lott found, “(f)or decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women’s vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.

The gender gap exists on various issues. The major one is the issue of smaller government and lower taxes, which is a much higher priority for men than for women. This is seen in divergent attitudes held by men and women on many separate issues. Women were much more opposed to the 1996 federal welfare reforms, which mandated time limits for receiving welfare and imposed some work requirements on welfare recipients. Women are also more supportive of Medicare, Social Security and educational expenditures.

Studies show that women are generally more risk averse than men. Possibly, this is why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life. Women’s average incomes are also slightly lower and less likely to vary over time, which gives single women an incentive to prefer more progressive income taxes. Once women become married, however, they bear a greater share of taxes through their husbands’ relatively higher income. In that circumstance, women’s support for high taxes understandably declines.

Marriage also provides an economic explanation for men and women to prefer different policies. Because women generally shoulder most of the child-rearing responsibilities, married men are more likely to acquire marketable skills that help them earn money outside the household. If a man gets divorced, he still retains these skills. But if a woman gets divorced, she is unable to recoup her investment in running the household. Hence, single women who believe they may marry in the future, as well as married women who most fear divorce, look to the government as a form of protection against this risk from a possible divorce: a more progressive tax system and other government transfers of wealth from rich to poor.

The more certain a woman is that she doesn’t risk divorce, the more likely she is to oppose government transfers. “ http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.