Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hilarious Clinton

Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance

19 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, rebuking President Barack Obama's administration and giving Republicans their first political victory in a national campaign to overturn the controversial health care law passed by Congress in March."The citizens of the Show-Me State don't want Washington involved in their health care decisions," said Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, one of the sponsors of the legislation that put Proposition C on the August ballot. She credited a grass-roots campaign involving Tea Party and patriot groups with building support for the anti-Washington proposition.

With most of the vote counted, Proposition C was winning by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. The measure, which seeks to exempt Missouri from the insurance mandate in the new health care law, includes a provision that would change how insurance companies that go out of business in Missouri liquidate their assets.

"I've never seen anything like it," Cunningham said at a campaign gathering at a private home in Town and Country. "Citizens wanted their voices to be heard."

About 30 Proposition C supporters whooped it up loudly at 9 p.m. when the returns flashed on the television showing the measure passing with more than 70 percent of the vote.

"It's the vote heard 'round the world," said Dwight Janson, 53, from Glendale, clad in an American flag-patterned shirt. Janson said he went to one of the first Tea Party gatherings last year and hopped on the Proposition C bandwagon because he wanted to make a difference.

"I was tired of sitting on the sidelines bouncing my gums," he said.

Missouri was the first of four states to seek to opt out of the insurance purchase mandate portion of the health care law that had been pushed by Obama. And while many legal scholars question whether the vote will be binding, the overwhelming approval gives the national GOP momentum as Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma hold similar votes during midterm elections in November.

"It's a big number," state Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Lemay, said of the vote. "I expected a victory, but not of this magnitude. This is going to propel the issue and several other issues about the proper role of the federal government."

From almost the moment the Democratic-controlled Congress passed the health care law — which aims to increase the number of Americans with health insurance — Republicans have vowed to try to repeal it. Their primary argument is that they believe the federal government should not be involved in mandating health care decisions at the local level.

While repeal might seem an unlikely strategy, the effort to send a message state by state that voters don't approve of being told they have to buy insurance could gain momentum.

That's what Republicans are counting on at least, hoping that the Missouri vote will give the national movement momentum.

"It's like a domino, and Missouri is the first one to fall," Cunningham said. "Missouri's vote will greatly influence the debate in the other states."

Proposition C faced little organized opposition, although the Missouri Hospital Association mounted a mailer campaign opposing the ballot issue in the last couple of weeks. The hospital association, which spent more than $300,000 in the losing effort, said that without the new federal law, those who don't have insurance will cause health care providers and other taxpayers to have higher costs.

"The only way to get to the cost problem in health care is to expand the insurance pool," said hospital association spokesman Dave Dillon. He said the hospital association didn't plan to sue over the law, but he expected it would be challenged.

"I think there is going to be no shortage of people who want to use the courts to resolve this issue," he said.

Democrats also generally opposed Proposition C, though they didn't spend much time or money talking about it.

In the closing days of the campaign, many politicians 'sidled up" to Proposition C, Cunningham said, seeing the momentum the issue had gained.

Among them was U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, who won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate on Tuesday night. Late last week, Blunt announced his support of Proposition C.

On Monday, Blunt said he hoped Missouri voters would send a "ballot box message" to the Obama's administration by overwhelmingly passing the measure.

The question now is whether the administration will respond by suing the state to block passage of the law, much as it did in Arizona recently over illegal immigration.

The issue in both is the same: When state laws conflict with federal laws, the courts have generally ruled in favor of the federal government, because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Richard Reuben, a law professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, said that if the federal government sues on the issue, it would likely win. Several other Missouri legal and political scholars agreed.

But Cunningham is undaunted. She's got her own experts, and they're ready to do battle in court.

"Constitutional experts disagree," she said. "There is substantial legal status to this thing."

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_c847dc7c-564c-5c70-8d90-dfd25ae6de56.html


"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies."

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006



barack-cowboy-hat.jpg
90f.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be curious to see how the Feds argue in court.

On one hand they could argue the commerce clause (and this one they would lose), and on the other they could argue calling it a tax (which they could possibly win), but either way, if this goes into effect you can expect tax evasion to skyrocket and expect some IRS workers to be fearful for their lives.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if this goes into effect you can expect tax evasion to skyrocket and expect some IRS workers to be fearful for their lives.
Remember that "Honest Obe" is hiring 16,000 new IRS workers. Accordingly, state laws or state votes be damned -- anyone who fails to adhere to the Obamacare purchase or the lack-of-purchase fines will certainly have his or her tax return altered by the IRS to reflect the penalties for noncompliance.

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be curious to see how the Feds argue in court.

On one hand they could argue the commerce clause (and this one they would lose), and on the other they could argue calling it a tax (which they could possibly win), but either way, if this goes into effect you can expect tax evasion to skyrocket and expect some IRS workers to be fearful for their lives.

A tax only on the evil, greedy rich. Right?


"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies."

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006



barack-cowboy-hat.jpg
90f.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tax only on the evil, greedy rich. Right?

if only..... unfortunately, that tax will be on the middle class directly. The poor won't have to worry as the "evil rich" will pay for the poor people's health care anyway still and even more people now!

Their tax comes in the form of an actual tax on their 'premium' health care plans. Several thousand dollars worth of taxes on those plans actually....


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ballot initiatives in Missouri are publicized anything like they are in California, the whole thing is an exercise in spin and propagandising.

If voters were more interested in understanding the specifics of these bills, rather than being told how to vote by misleading television and radio ads, I expect the outcome of many of these votes would be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ballot initiatives in Missouri are publicized anything like they are in California, the whole thing is an exercise in spin and propagandising.

If voters were more interested in understanding the specifics of these bills, rather than being told how to vote by misleading television and radio ads, I expect the outcome of many of these votes would be different.

You mean like the way Obama was elected? Through ignorance and misunderstanding.


"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies."

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006



barack-cowboy-hat.jpg
90f.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like the way Obama was elected? Through ignorance and misunderstanding a weak competitor.

Fixed. It doesn't matter about if going left or right is good for the US, the republican party needs a decent leader who cares about driving the country forward. Someone who promised not to vote on anything the dems wanted, regardless of if it was best for the country or not does not have the qualities to be president.

I don't know enough about US politics to get a true understanding about the fall out of everyone having to buy insurance. I have a feeling some of the politicians don't either. I mean it was clear when they (the left) were selling the case for single payer system at the beginning they had no idea of how it was going to work, so they couldn't have known what it was going to cost. That doesn't give me much hope that they know what they're doing now, either.

What I want to know is, if you (meaning anyone who has an opinion on this) don't agree with everyone having to have insurance, what are your ideas/solutions for making medical care accessible to all, especially in a time of high unemployment. I'm more referring to the people who got laid off and are actively seeking jobs to continue feeding their families, not the bums and drug addicts who are happy to feed off the system I know like to get talked about.


mooglesmall2-1-1.jpgDelicioussig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is weird to me that policy changes can be vetoed before they even have a chance to see whether or not they would be successful. Health care is a mess though - no one is really willing to pay the true cost of health care so those who have to use health care providers pay more than they should while those who enjoy good health bang on about how great it is not to have to pay taxes. Funniest thing, since living here I haven't experienced these low tax rates for myself - I get taxed as much, if not more here than I did in the UK and then I have to pay for the privilege of having some health insurance that I can't get to grips with because it makes very little sense on top of that. Marvelous!


Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is weird to me that policy changes can be vetoed before they even have a chance to see whether or not they would be successful. Health care is a mess though - no one is really willing to pay the true cost of health care so those who have to use health care providers pay more than they should while those who enjoy good health bang on about how great it is not to have to pay taxes. Funniest thing, since living here I haven't experienced these low tax rates for myself - I get taxed as much, if not more here than I did in the UK and then I have to pay for the privilege of having some health insurance that I can't get to grips with because it makes very little sense on top of that. Marvelous!

It's a headache isn't it. My favourite part was at the time, there were scores of people saying they didn't want the government to come between them and their doctors, but I've had nothing but insurance companies come between me and my doctor since I got here...and that's okay? I don't even have any chronic long term health issues so I really feel bad for people that do.


mooglesmall2-1-1.jpgDelicioussig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a headache isn't it. My favourite part was at the time, there were scores of people saying they didn't want the government to come between them and their doctors, but I've had nothing but insurance companies come between me and my doctor since I got here...and that's okay? I don't even have any chronic long term health issues so I really feel bad for people that do.

Certainly is. I don't have confidence that the fix that has been put in place will work as well as it is supposed to but I would at least allow it to play out because what is in place now only really serves the insurance companies well.


Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×