Opponents of the Obama administration's health-care overhaul said Missouri voters' rejection of a key plank could re-energize the push in other states to challenge the measure.
Missouri's Proposition C, which passed with 71% of the vote Tuesday, establishes a state law that says Missouri can't force people to pay a penalty or fine if they fail to carry health-insurance coverage. That requirement for coverage is one of the most controversial components of the federal health-care law that President Barack Obama signed in March.
Missouri sent a clear message to Democrats and the Obama administration that government-run health care is a gross overreach of the federal government that needs to be repealed and replaced.
A total of 26 states have said we're not going for this
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704741904575409711965002980.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Originally posted by utherpendragonWell, there's got to be good news sometimes eh, thumbs up.
Opponents of the Obama administration's health-care overhaul said Missouri voters' rejection of a key plank could re-energize the push in other states to challenge the measure.
Missouri's Proposition C, which passed with 71% of the vote Tuesday, establishes a state law that says Missouri can't force people to pay a penalty or fine if they fail to c ...[text shortened]... nline.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704741904575409711965002980.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Originally posted by utherpendragonCan we also then repeal Medicare and Medicaid and AHCCCS and all the other ways that the taxpayers pay for the health care of those who don't insure themselves (whether by choice or circumstance)?
I agree. It seems that the kool-aid is wearing off and people are waking up and smelling the coffee.
Originally posted by pawnhandlerYou got HIV in the 1950's? I never heard of it before 80 or 81.
Can we also then repeal Medicare and Medicaid and AHCCCS and all the other ways that the taxpayers pay for the health care of those who don't insure themselves (whether by choice or circumstance)?
It's truly amazing that the watered down, half-assed healthcare bill that finally slithered its was through a bitterly divided Congress after months of debate is still be so, so vociferously resisted, even in purple states.
Can you imagine what would have happened if they'd passed a single payer system bill? At this rate, there's be an armed revolution.
The problem is that we are already in trouble with the debt. We can't possibly pay for all this and anyone with half a brain and is not blinded by ideology knows it.
You can't possibly hope to give the poor decent health care until you dramatically lower the cost.
How can the government lower the cost? How about offering doctors tax exemption if they work two days pro-bono every week in free clinics for the poor? Extend the offer to everyone in the medical field. Hospitals can join in by making their emergency room free for low income people. After all, that's where they go anyhow. Be it for a fever of 101 or a broken arm, low income people go to the emergency room.
Work within the system we've established. Give tax incentives to get people to do what you want them to do. It is as simple as that. But no, Obama wants to drive us so far into debt that we will make Greece and Spain look like they are running surpluses.
Originally posted by utherpendragonMissouri's telegraph system must be down and they haven't received the news from 1865.
Opponents of the Obama administration's health-care overhaul said Missouri voters' rejection of a key plank could re-energize the push in other states to challenge the measure.
Missouri's Proposition C, which passed with 71% of the vote Tuesday, establishes a state law that says Missouri can't force people to pay a penalty or fine if they fail to c ...[text shortened]... /online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704741904575409711965002980.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Originally posted by utherpendragonEverybody knows that the majority of the people don't support the individual mandate. Wasting the taxpayers' money having a nonbinding vote on it is senseless. The issue is in court; IF the mandate is unconstitutional it will be thrown out, if it isn't it won't be. No State proposition vote has any effect on this and the Proposition itself is blatantly unconstitutional.
its a symbolic victory.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat a coincidence! So is the federal government forcing people to buy health insurance.
Everybody knows that the majority of the people don't support the individual mandate. Wasting the taxpayers' money having a nonbinding vote on it is senseless. The issue is in court; IF the mandate is unconstitutional it will be thrown out, if it isn't it won't be. No State proposition vote has any effect on this and the Proposition itself is blatantly unconstitutional.
Originally posted by utherpendragonI doubt that making someone pay higher taxes because they don't have health insurance will be found unconstitutional, but I've stated before I really don't care if it is. Only the insurance companies benefit from the provision anyway.
What a coincidence! So is the federal government forcing people to buy health insurance.
Here's an interesting tidbit from the article you cited: A Kaiser Family Foundation poll in July found 50% of Americans had a favorable view of the law [i.e. the health care reform} while 35% had an unfavorable opinion. In April, the poll showed 46% in favor and 40% against.
It looks like the Republican master plan to run against health care reform isn't going to work that well except perhaps in the Reddest of States (where they presumably don't need to).
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe federal government is already forcing you to borrow money and buy a house. It's forcing you to have children. Those who don't do these things have to pay more in taxes.
What a coincidence! So is the federal government forcing people to buy health insurance.
Originally posted by utherpendragonYep, and it sucks. But the problem is that health care costs have so many interlocking parts that you can't increase coverage and lower costs without measures like this. If people are allowed to opt out of health insurance, then health insurers will not have the revenue base from premiums that will allow them to cover those with chronic expensive conditions. If you force insurers to cover children and those with preexisting conditions, and also attempt to cap premiums, then insurers will need to draw revenue from many, many more people. Of course, we could detach health care from private insurance all together, and opt for a single-payer universal system. It would cost less and cover more, but then you'd be upset at the increase in taxes. Instead of families being bankrupted by illness, and the rest of us spending a ton of money, and more each year, on premiums to private insurers, the costs would be distributed among the citizenry. Then healthy people would cry "Theft!".
What a coincidence! So is the federal government forcing people to buy health insurance.