Missouri votes to block US health insurance law

[cal04]

Source: Reuters

Missouri voters on Tuesday rejected the new U.S. healthcare bill, approving a measure that would forbid the federal government from penalizing people who do not buy health insurance.

With 78 percent of precincts reporting, 72.6 percent of voters supported the Health Care Freedom Act, also known as Proposition C, while 27.4 percent rejected it.

In approving the measure, Missouri won a victory in a series of planned assaults around the country against the sweeping reform, which was a major part of President Barack Obama's domestic agenda and became law in March.

The fight over the healthcare law -- and the individual mandate that requires individuals to have healthcare insurance -- is expected to be a major issue in the November congressional elections as Republicans plan to make repeal a major campaign theme against Democrats.




Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03183470.htm

---

Tuesday's vote was seen as largely symbolic because federal law generally trumps state law. But it was also seen as a sign of growing voter disillusionment with federal policies and a show of strength by conservatives and the tea party movement.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/08/04/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Overhaul-Missouri.html?hp

[Oregone]

1. "forbid the federal government from penalizing people who do not buy health insurance."

This sort of activity could really damage the upcoming plan to end homelessness.

:rofl:

[Tsiyu]

30. no doubt

perhaps they meant: "prohibit the federal government from NOT penalizing people who do not buy health insurance?" :P


or maybe the word is "prohibid" or is it "forhibit?"


:rofl:

[DJ13]

2. This is what happens when you dont just extend Medicare

Use the existing tax structure instead of playing it cute to try and keep the insurers in the money.

[RKP5637]

4. Yep!!! The health care in this country is so ridiculously complicated and

convoluted.

[Zavulon]

81. +1.

I was screaming for an extension in Medicare from the outset, and instead we got a festering piece of shit bill. If I were in Missouri I'd have voted to overturn it, too.

[Hawkeye-X]

3. I support Prop C because there is NO effin' way that it should be a mandate

WITHOUT any single payer option or public option.

Hell, forget the public option - we need to go UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PLAN (Expanded Medicare Part A&B and repaired D)

We have been paying into it forever, and why not give it to us for free or at a cost for all in one low monthly payment, eh?

[RKP5637]

5. Exactly!!! n/t

[mvd]

9. Thing is, the Repukes want the whole thing to go down - including the good parts

They are using the mandates as an excuse. I agree, though, that single payer would have bypassed all these legal wrangles. The thing to worry about is the RW extremist, activist Supreme Court.

[Kringle]

16. what are the good parts? .nt

[mvd]

17. Getting rid of pre-existing condition denials, more money for..

community health centers, allowing children to stay on parents' plan well into their 20s, etc. I think the mandate is necessary for the law, though I greatly prefer single payer or at least a public option if the mandate is used. A mandate without a public option is very flawed.

[Kringle]

19. that stuff doesn't help me any, I'll just get put in a pool with a bunch of sickies

of that is not correct,

please enlighten me

[mvd]

20. Unfortunately, the bigger stuff doesn't happen for 4 years

You can read about some changes here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/health-care-bill-obama-sign-bill-tuesday/story?id=10169801

[eomer]

23. Effective 1/1/14 there will be no pools. Insurers will be prohibited from charging higher rates...

based on health condition.

In the meantime before 1/1/14 there is a new high-risk pool established as a temporary help for some people with pre-existing conditions. Those who qualify for this pool will be charged standard rates of healthy people, with the federal government paying the extra cost caused by the health condition of those covered.

[Vinca]

26. That's not true. I investigated the high risk pool in my state.

States apparently had the option of opening their existing pool or using the federal pool. My state is using the existing pool and the cost is what it was prior to "reform" and that is nearly $1,500 a month each for my husband and I. Younger people may be able to get something somewhere within the realm of affordability, but if you're old in America, you're on the Republican plan. If you get sick, die quickly.

[eomer]

58. New Hampshire does have a new federal pool.

Your profile says New Hampshire so I assume that's the state you're talking about.

The states have options about *how* to implement a federal pool, not *whether* to implement one. All the options implement a pool that follows the federal rules, one way or another.

New Hampshire has both its own existing pool and a new federal pool, side-by-side, which is one of the options. You have to meet the federal rules, of course, to get into the federal pool.

Here's a website with info on both New Hampshire pools:
http://www.nhhealthplan.org/index.asp

The costs are high but so are they high for everyone else. When we had to put our daughter on COBRA coverage a couple of years ago the cost was about $600 a month for a 25 year old in perfect health. That rate was exactly the same as the cost when she was covered as a dependent under my employer's plan when you add up both my employee contribution and the employer contribution.

[Vinca]

59. Thanks. Been there, done that. If only I was a 25 yo in perfect health.

[eomer]

64. I wasn't recommending it, saying it is a good deal, or advocating for it.

Mainly I posted because it's important for people facing difficult choices (like many readers of this forum) to have correct information and all the information. Like Vidal Sassoon says, "we give you the hair, you take it from there".

So, from what I understand, every state will have to have a pool that follows the federal rules and those federal rules require the rates charged by the pool to be based on standard rates for regular risks. Those are the facts -- please (sincerely) correct me if I'm wrong so everyone will have correct information to go by.

[alfredo]

38. Don't worry, you won't catch anything from them.

[Roland99]

44. pre-existing condition denials may be gone but one will pay dearly for a plan

Insurance companies have been raising the "floor" of premiums so that when they are forced to cover pre-existing condition applicants, that max they can charge will be even higher.

[mvd]

54. Let's just hope this part gets enforced:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/questions/no-insurance

It says:

"* For the first time in history, there will be limits on how much anyone will have to pay to receive health care coverage. And depending upon your income, you may be among the tens of millions of Americans who will get a tax credit to to help pay for your coverage.
* And for the first time in history, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to simply tell you “no”. They will be required to offer coverage regardless of your health status, and they cannot jack up rates or drop you from your coverage when you get sick."

I think subsidy amounts for one need to be greater.

[Roland99]

55. Tax credits are fine and dandy but how are people to pay the premium until they file?

They'll be paying at least double the floor premium.

[mvd]

56. The part I quoted addressed more than tax credits

It says that insurers can't jack up rates on the sick, and there will be limits on cost. How well it works, though, remains to be seen.

[burnsei sensei]

89. In other words, the tax burden really is all the same.

And the difference is that a certain amount of "tax credit" money will go to corporate, for-profit health insurance.
Nice deal for them.
And good luck with that long term. From what I've seen, the intransigence of unemployment is going to make this harder to pull off.

[t0dd]

10. +1. But watch people here spin it as being part of the 'Republican's plan'

except that Liz Fowler, Max Baucus, and Obama were the ones that made sure there was an individual mandate and no public option because our precious insurance companies wanted a new huge pool of victims without the competition.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sherman A1]

27. Precisely

I voted against Prop C as I believe it was a shot at the Obama Administration by the GOP, but I really believe we should have single payer universal health care.

[proud2BlibKansan]

85. That's where I'm at too

This was a victory for the MO teabaggers, who worked hard to get this passed. And anything they are for I am against.

[Cleobulus]

101. So you voted to screw Missourians to protect Obama?

What fucked up convoluted world do you exist in?

[earthside]

33. Yes!

There will be a similar item on the ballot in Colorado this November.

I will probably vote for it (I haven't seen the text yet, so I'm just talking to the general idea).

I am against a mandate to buy health insurance from a private sector corporation. It is not like auto insurance where I can decide not to drive.

A public option for everyone? Fine, a mandate is okay. Universal, single-payer health care, fine.

But no way do I want to face the prospect of a penalty if I don't want to contribute to some corporate health insurance executive's bonus payment!

[Roland99]

43. Hear! Hear!

HR 676 or bust!!

[harun]

62. Only people who want a mandate are insurance companies and the politicians they own.

[SocialistLez]

6. Would have been nice if they voted in favor of single-payer...NT

[Downwinder]

7. Wasn't that part of the Republican plan?

[Xenotime]

61. Yes. I'm tired of them thinking they know what is best for everyone.

[glinda]

8. Isn't this just for show since the Gov cannot actually enforce anyone to get HC. It is written into

the Bill.

[Robbien]

11. Yup. This was just campaign fodder to get GOPers to the voting booth

It really changes nothing.

[pstokely]

21. About 3 months too early nt

[glinda]

39. But they used tax-payers money to do this.

[FBaggins]

41. I suspect that if that's true... by November

a trick that "gets GOPers to the voting booth" would change quite a bit more than nothing.

[Posteritatis]

12. Pity nullification isn't recognized and that this is largely meaningless, of course.

I imagine they'll have interesting reactions when they discover that.

[gagaisgreat]

32. Myself, I hope they are joined by other States and the Federal

government has to ultimately send troops everywhere. The public is beginning to understand what is happening.

[Aramchek]

13. this will have no effect on HCR, Missouri doesn't have the authority to block federal law

[alp227]

14. Ballot abuse with a useless proposition indeed.

Oklahoma once actually had a bill before legislature that banned references to international law (including specifically sharia) in state court cases.

And the only penalty for not buying insurance under this bill is a tax penalty; it's just called a mandate because of the financial incentive. Right?

[47of74]

18. I was looking for an excuse to whip this out tonight...

...I appear to have found it...

[truthisfreedom]

22. So we've got one state that will carry the load and not reap any benefits. Perfect.

Carry on, crazy people.

[JDPriestly]

24. If the penalties are actually in the form of tax credits, state law will be pre-empted.

I'm not sure how Congress enacted the penalties, but I think they are probably just part of the tax code. States will have no say about the federal tax code if I am right. I can't see how else Congress could have done this.

The fact that a couple or even as many as ten or 15 states object to the new law does not change the fact that the majority of Americans support it. That is especially true if they are medium to small-sized states like Missouri.

As long as California and New York and other highly populated states, maybe Ohio, support the health care measure, the fact that states like Virginia and Missouri don't won't make much difference.

[FBaggins]

40. Whether "the majority of americans support it" or not is open to debate.

Keep in mind that MO only went for McCain by a handful of votes (a tenth of a percent).

To lose this vote by almost 3:1 is no small deal. Yes, we don't know how many of them opposed the plan because it was too far left and how many opposed it because it was too far right... but a whole mess of people who voted for the President now oppose his key measure (and a whole herd of democratic congressmen voted for it).

[JDPriestly]

65. We also don't know how many people oppose it because they

don't understand what it will mean for them. And that is the biggie. The bill is hard to understand. It went through so many changes that I don't think that very many people know what is in it. There are lots of provisions in it that I am not familiar with.

[bowens43]

25. nothing more then a public circle jerk........

completely meaningless

[Tiras De Carne Seca]

70. I think you hope it is completely meaningless.

However, I suspect you fear that it isn't completely meaningless.

[cornermouse]

28. It also is a sign of the anger than exists about Obama's

idea of HCR. This anger could be reflected yet again in November when people vote for their senators and representatives.

[customerserviceguy]

29. Agreed

It cuts from both sides, there are the Republicons who hate any idea whatsoever of HCR, and those who oppose the mandate portion of the law. The first group will vote Repuke, and the second group will be reluctant to support their Democratic opponents.

There's a bloodbath coming this fall, I suspect it may dwarf 1994 in its scope.

[gagaisgreat]

31. I suspect you are right. I also am beginning to think there will be

some kind of a revolution as the bread lines form. And Healthcare is just the tip of the iceberg... What could have been is rapidly turning into what never should have happened.

[FBaggins]

42. I hope you're wrong.

I fear that you're right.

The generic congressional ballot question wasn't nearly this bad leading up to the 1994 mid-terms.

[Tempest]

47. Why the 2010 Congressional Elections Won't Repeat 1994

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/12/30/why-the-2010-congressional-elections-wont-repeat-1994.html

[FBaggins]

48. That was Schlesinger's opinion eight months ago.

He has since changed his mind.

"But one thing remains unchanged--Democrats need to wake up their supporters, and soon."

Yesterday's MO primaries highlight this in more ways than just the headline vote above. Take Ike Skelton in district 4. There are at least 35 democrats (possibly 45) who are more endangered right now than Skelton (IOW, if he loses there's a good chance that the House is gone). 121,000 voters voted in that district's primary yesterday... and only 26k of them voted for Skelton. There were two republicans who each took a larger share of the vote (even though there were nine republicans splitting the ballot). Now... he's always won in a red-leaning district, but this is a clear danger sign. Even Russ Carnahan's race wasn't as positive as it should have been (and he's close to 75th on the list - IOW, if Carnahan loses, people won't talk about 1994 any more).

[Tempest]

50. It still holds true

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=397147&mesg_id=397147

Americans are rejecting the GOP platform.

[FBaggins]

52. Republicans aren't in power.

Americans are rejecting what currently passes for a democratic platform in even larger numbers... and that's what's on the ballot this November.

Have you looked at the generic congressional polling lately? It's far worse than it was in 1994.

Statements made in December (when Democrats still held narrow leads in most of the polling and the President still held a favorable job-approval rating) are no longer operative.

The guy who made the statement you're citing knows it's no longer accurate... your position is (at best) wishful thinking. It's a fantasy that I, for one, would love to participate in... but reality looks more like a nightmare right now.

[Tempest]

77. "Have you looked at the generic congressional polling lately?"

Have you seen the polling for ACTUAL races? It's no where near as dire as you're making it out to be.

Generic polls are useless. Look at the approval ratings for Democrats vs. Republicans in Congress. Ratings for Republicans is worse. And polls show Americans want Democrats to stay in control.


Poll today shows Reid up on Angle by almost 20 points after being down by 11.

[FBaggins]

87. Polling for dozens of actual House races?

You really think that there's much public reliable polling at this point on individual districts? There really isn't. And even if there were, how would you account for dozens of national polls getting it wrong? This is really just the same spin as the presidential candidate who trails by seven points a month before the election, but swears that if you look state by state he has an electoral college path to victory. That only works when the generic is close enough (which it isn't right now).

What you can get at this point is decent senate polling since those are statewide races... and the polling looks grim. Not "lose the senate" grim, but pretty awful.

Look at the approval ratings for Democrats vs. Republicans in Congress. Ratings for Republicans is worse.

Actually, they're virtually identical (the latest Pew shows democrats 35/56 and republicans 33/53). But that hardly matters, because only one party is in power and midterms are a referendum on the new president and the party that controls congress.

Poll today shows Reid up on Angle by almost 20 points after being down by 11.

It was actually four points (among likely voters) and he still failed to top 50% (a clear danger sign for a well-known incumbent). Certainly Reid is making a shocking comeback, but the entire thing can be laid at the feet of a true gift of an opponent. No similar surge is seen nationwide.

[Tempest]

91. "You really think that there's much public reliable polling at this point on individual districts?"

If you took the time to research the individual districts you'll find polling for a great many of them being done by local newspapers and media.

I can't believe I have to tell you this.

[FBaggins]

93. I have yet to see a single incumbent Democrat on Cook's

that even leads in any independent poll. Let alone a poll that aplies a likely voter screen.

Can you provide some?

The Washington post published a poll on the VA 5th just a few days ago. This is one of Cook’s “tossup” races, but the republican leads by 23% even with a 3rd party candidate drawing 4% entirely from the republican.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/07/poll_shows_rep_perriello_trail.html

MS 1st. Childers was down by 8pts in the last ind poll I saw (about a month ago?)

As I said earlier in the thread… the MO primary hints at real problems for Ike Skelton. Though he’s hardly a favorite here (and for good reason), if his seat is lost there will be at least 40 others that go with him.

In NH, the 2nd district has consistently polled for the republicans. In the 1st district, Shea Porter has retaken a small lead, but it’s among registered voters rather than likely, and she is still well below the 50% Mendoza line that marks an endangered incumbent.

The senate race in Wisconsin just moved (today) from “leans democrat” to “tossup” (only a couple weeks ago it was in the “solid democrat” column).

[customerserviceguy]

97. I have to agree, that's old news

It was written before both the Scott Brown election (who saw that coming back in December, 2009?) and the passage of HCR. Those two things energized the Repuke base like nothing else could have.

Also, I used to respect US News and World Report, I started reading it back in junior high school in the very early 1970's. I used to have subscriptions for most of my adult years, learning loads about the world, and especially about US politics.

Lately, it's dwindled to a tiny fragment of its former self; it still calls itself "News" even though it comes out once a month. Most of those issues are either broad based "What Obama Plans to Do Next Year" sorts of speculations, or their "Best Hospitals/Colleges/Etc." issues that just live to leech off advertising from the particular industry being profiled.

Since advertising in print editions supports content in both print and online versions, I'd have to guess that they really don't have a lot to spend on thoughtful writing these days, so it's hard for me to take them seriously any more.

[Tempest]

34. Don't read too much into this vote

Missouri’s ballots had more competitive Republican primaries than Democratic ones, likely skewing support for the proposition.

http://www.politico.com/politicopulse/0810/politicopulse309.html

[totodeinhere]

35. But 72% is a big number. There aren't enough Republicans in the state to skew it up to a number

like that. There is something else going on here. I know a lot of Democrats (I am not in Missouri) who are upset at this bill as well. They are saying that since the bill has passed and their their health care is just as expensive as before. And that included me. My copays have just gone up again.

[Tempest]

36. There sure as hell is enough to skew the results

There aren't enough Republicans in the state to skew it up to a number

Taking the Missouri Senate race yesterday, the Democratic candidates received 315,787 votes. The Republican candidates received 577,612 votes.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/allresults.asp?eid=283

The Republican votes accounted for 64% of all voters.

[FBaggins]

45. That's "yesterday"

Two years ago, Obama almost won the state.

Call the republicans coming home, call them democrats that are disillusioned... call it whatever you want, but something has shifted dramatically in the last two years.

[Tempest]

46. Thanks for making my point for me

Two years ago, Obama almost won the state

EXACTLY!

And yesterday Republicans went to the polls in far greater numbers than Democrats which skewed the results of Prop. C.

[cornermouse]

57. Two years ago Obama almost won the state

because of the independents, democrats and some republicans and the anger all sides had at Bush's policies. Instead of repealing or negating Bush's policies, Obama kept them in place. November is going to be ugly.

[totodeinhere]

60. But the initiative got 76% not 64. And surely not all Republicans voter for it.

Most probably did, but obviously, to get to 76% a lot of other people besides Republicans must have voted for it too.

[Tempest]

80. My point is that it wouldn't have gotten 76% in a general election

Or during a presidential election year.

[FBaggins]

88. Of course not

The question is whether it would get 51% support.

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. In MO you don't have to declare a party when you register

You declare at the poll. So a lot of those so-called Republican voters may very well be Democrats who chose the Republican ballot.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

98. EXCELLENT post. Shows what the "mainstream" media are leaving out of

their stories using this very skewed election for another phoney blast at the WH.

You might also point out that the Missouri referendum itself goes after only the tradeoff that must pay for the more popular features of HCR, such as relief from denial of insurance for pre-existing conditions.

Without an individual mandate, people would "game the system", applying for insurance only after they get sick.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

99. So the headline, "MO VOTES to block US HEALTH INSURANCE LAW" is WRONG

on TWO counts--a more truthful headline would be,

"Missouri REPUBLICANS turned out in force to oppose PART of US healthcare reform".

But that would be a very differesnt story, wouldn't it.

[FBaggins]

100. Nope... there is no reason to believe that that's correct.

People can vote in any primary in MO. You can't tell whether it was just a bunch of extra Republicans showing up (though that still leaves a bunch of Democrats voting against us and wouldn't be a good thing in any case), OR a bunch of voters who opposed the HCR and voted for Republican candidates because of it.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

108. Isn't a Republican Senator retiring this year? Wasn't the R primary

for Senate candidate to replace him by far the biggest draw for voters to turnout?

Sorry Frodo, you're not fooling anyone.

[FBaggins]

109. That's creative spin... but not at all compelling.

1) It's a competitive race that either party can win... so both parties have an excuse to turn out.

2) Neither party's primary was ever considered competitive (the second place finisher for both parties barely cracked double digits), and competitive primaries are the ones that create an extra draw.

So no, that's no explanation for additional turnout that might impact other ballot lines. If anything it's the other way around. Which is a good thing for November, else the much larger republican turnout would call the "tossup" rating in to question and this is one of the races that we could pick off with just a small move in our direction or stumble by the Blount.

You're the one trying to fool someone... but that's ok... unlike the other poster, I think it's yourself.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

110. "2/3 of the voters participated in the Republican Senate primary, and turnout in Democratic strongho...

... was among the lowest in the state."

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/04/AR2010080407158.html?hpid=topnews :

"supporters of the national law argued that the electorate was far from representative. Turnout was far higher on the Republican side, where Blunt was facing a more competitive field than Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan was on the Democratic side.

About two-thirds of the voters participated in the Republican Senate primary, and turnout in Democratic strongholds such as St. Louis and Kansas City was among the lowest in the state."

Is doubletalk more persuasive than facts? If so, then you are correct and I am wrong.

[alfredo]

37. It is means tested. If you don't have the money, you get subsidized.

[Tempest]

49. Anti-HCR candidates are losing elections

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=397147&mesg_id=397147

[FBaggins]

53. Did any of them lose to PRO-HCR candidates?

It isn't particularly honest, for instance, to spin the Nevada primary as you have... when Brian Sandoval is just as anti-HCR.

[Tempest]

78. Has Sandoval said he would challenge HCR in court?

The losers I posted about did.

And for the record, I wasn't spinning anything. I showed that candidates who said they would challenge HCR in court are losing primary races.

[FBaggins]

84. Yes. He's quite anxious to.

And for the record, I wasn't spinning anything. I showed that candidates who said they would challenge HCR in court are losing primary races.

Of course you were spinning. The clear implication of the statement was that they were losing because public support for fighting HCR was lacking (that it was therefore not a campaign issue that would help republicans much).

If both candidates in a primary are anti-HCR, obviously one of them will lose (and just as obviously, the issue didn't make the difference).

[Tempest]

92. Cite?

[FBaggins]

95. Sure

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/mar/24/sandoval-not-following-gop-crowd-health-care-lawsu/



"After a thorough review of the bill and the legal foundation of this action, I absolutely support the state joining the suit against the federal government and would strongly urge the Attorney General to move forward"

[RBInMaine]

51. Overall, the bill nationally is over 50% approval. Of course during a recession the RePUKES are

going to LIE all over the airwaves about this mandate but will not say that those who have a hard time paying for it will receive subsidies. Plus, what they did in Missouri on this is unconstitutional. States can't overturn federal law. AND, it is no different than the REPUBLICAN Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts. All a bunch of shit exploiting people's anxiety during a recession. People voted against it in Missouri because they are thinking of it like a tax increase. They are not thinking about how it is subsidized or all the other things the law does to LOWER healthcare costs. But, Dems need to get out there and counter the lies with the truth.

[emulatorloo]

63. "growing voter disillusionment" - isn't Missouri a wing nut state? So why is this a big surprise

that the wingnuts voted.

OTOH Maybe if they knew mandates originated with the Republicans, they would have voted the other way.

[Tiras De Carne Seca]

73. I love how it's ok to paint the whole state with such a broad brush

I voted for Prop C and I am certainly not a "wingnut". I just happen to think we need real health care reform and not insurance mandates to prop up an industry. Many folks also feel the same way but that doesn't automatically make them a "wingnut". Try looking beyond the whole "with us or against us" mentality. The world also has many shades of gray. It's not all black and white you know.

[emulatorloo]

94. Welcome to DU! None the less Missouri is a red state, blood red.

[FBaggins]

96. A "blood red" state that almost went for Obama?

A blood red state with five out of seven statewide offices held by Democrats? Where republicans hold only a 1-seat advantage in the Congressional delegation?

[Cleobulus]

102. More like a slightly red tinged purple state...

Seriously, I don't know where people get their information, remember we voted for a dead guy before we would vote for Ashcroft. Not to mention are state government(particularly the governor's office) swings from one party to the other quite often. We have the two major cities, Kansas City and St. Louis to counterbalance the deep red areas.

[and-justice-for-all]

66. I do not care if there is a mandate to carry health insurance....

but they need to have a REAL socialized health care program for every one; i.e. Medicare for all.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

67. I'm not a lawyer, but I dont think a state can block that kind of fed law

[DainBramaged]

68. "Tuesday's vote was seen as largely symbolic " by stupid people listening to FAUX news

Dumb and if such a majority is that healthy that they don't need health care, fuck 'em. Oh wait, how many are already on Medicare/medicaid??

[rocktivity]

69. How can they reject it when it's FEDERAL?

:shrug:
rocktivity

[Hosnon]

71. They can't ... well, they can but it won't have any force of law. nt.

[24601]

72. The USSC will decide of the powers in HCR belong to the federal

government (if is it granted in the constitutional federal power). If the USSC ultimately decides the feds have overreached their authorities, by the 10th Amendment, the powers belong to the states or to the people. If you don't think it won't end up in the USSC, you aren't paying close enough attention. Here's the text of the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[rocktivity]

74. But the Constitution also says that state law cannot violate federal law.

There's the rub--and of course I expect it to go to the Supreme court.

Fortunately, Obama has a "nuclear" weapon -- Medicare for all.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[FBaggins]

75. But that only applies

if the Federal law is a proper exercise of the federal government's authority. The law helps establish standing for the state to sue.

[24601]

82. The way things are looking, he won;t have that "nuclear weapon"

after the next congress convenes.

And they don't even have to kill it while he's in office, just fail to fund any of it.

[Raggz]

107. Where does the Constitution say that state law cannot violate federal law?

It doesn't.

[ProSense]

76. The media are making a big deal out of one state. What about the

26 states where such bills have failed




Missouri voted on the narrow issue of mandates, and the state is still going to implement the health care law.

[budkin]

79. Didn't a heavy majority of the country also disagree with desegregation?

[savalez]

83. "Health Care Freedom Act". When a bill has a nice sounding name like this...

you know it's a bullshit republican bill that has the opposite effect of what the name implies. They do this all the time. Well, maybe this time they actually do mean that you are free from having health care? LOL. My goodness.

[burnsei sensei]

90. I'm sure that means freedom to die

of preventable conditions.
Freedom to suffer for years.
Freedom to become disabled.
Yeah, that freedom's a great thing.

[Cleobulus]

103. I have yet to understand this argument, how does the HCR bill prevent any of that...

when you can't afford premiums, or out of pocket expenses you still go through all that shit, and the subsidies are simply inadequate and a joke.

[KareBear]

104. Ballot language

I'd say a lot of this is due to how this was worded on the ballot. I found it very biased.
"Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:
- Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?
-Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?
It is estimated this proposal will have no immediate costs or savings to state or local governmental entities. However, because of the uncertain interaction of the proposal with implementation of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, future costs to state governmental entities are unknown."

[Raggz]

105. The problem is that government can only copntrol the taxes that are collected

The present system is that government collects taxes and spends these.

Health care reform has a new concept, the money left AFTER we pay our taxes is also under government control. Government can now tell us what to buy with it. this is new.

Now that government potentially controls 100% of our pay checks, is it still our money?

If health care reform was funded by taxes then it would not lose in the courts.

[apnu]

106. Its good to see the stupid is still on parade in Missouri (nt)

[Adsos Letter]

111. Nullification? Calling John C. Calhoun to the front counter, please...

Mr. Calhoun?