If you live outside Missouri and haven’t yet heard about this, I don’t blame you. It’s really not getting much attention outside Missouri.
If you live inside Missouri and haven’t yet heard about this, I don’t blame you either. It’s also not getting much attention anywhere in the state.
Prop C, stemming from HB 1764, aims to block the federal government from requiring people to buy health insurance and bans punishment for those without health insurance. It was slid into the Legislative agenda at the end of the session and then breezed through the House and Senate.
It’s basically an FU to the Federal government and the health care legislation passed earlier this year. If Prop C passes, it will be run through the court system for the next several years (at considerable taxpayer expense) before it’s ultimately declared Unconstitutional. There’s pretty much no way around it. It’s in direct violation of Federal law.
But that’s not the point. The point is to attempt to circumvent for however long it’s possible any and all timelines set up by the Health care reform legislation. First up: the September deadline to get children under 26 years of age onto some form of health insurance and not deny them for pre-existing conditions.
Over the next several years this will affect hundreds of thousands of Missourians.
And here’s the classy part. Like CA’s Prop 8, this is phrased to be the opposite of what you’d expect. Are you FOR health care reform? Vote AGAINST this then.
Here’s some pretty neutral information on this:
It goes up for vote on the August 3rd election so go out and vote!
I can’t really see how this will do anything. IIRC, the penalties for ignoring the mandate were administered by the IRS. I don’t really see how a Missouri law is going to keep the IRS from assessing those penalties or treating people who refuse to pay as tax-evaders.
I imagine a few Missourians will try and use the law to justify not paying, and end up sharing a cell-block with Wesley Snipes. For everyone else, meh.
It’s pretty much a given that it will pass. Primary turnout for Republicans is expected to be much greater than for Democrats.
Which is another thing! Why in the world does Missouri allow stuff like this on the ballot in what is otherwise a simple party primary election? St. Louis County also has a proposition on the ballot. People who aren’t members of a party aren’t going to be inclined to toddle down to vote for one or two propositions, and people who are a party member may not have a seriously contested primary race. It’s ridiculous to expect a representative turnout for this.
And municipal elections are in the spring. I voted in April, I’ll vote Tuesday, and I’ll vote again in November. Aargh!
Meaningless yes. Ultimately have no effect, yes. But while the law is on the books and before it gets struck down by the courts, there’s a glorious legal sweet spot where health insurance companies need not adhere to any laws passed by the Federal government and hundreds of thousands of Missourians go without that which they are entitled: health insurance. I’d take health CARE, but I’ll settle for insurance.
The law doesn’t seem to even try to affect parts of the ACA affecting insurance companies, so I don’t really see why you think it would be relevant to them. It just says *individuals[/] can’t be forced to buy healthcare. And again, the ACA doesn’t, so far as I know, need the State of Missouri to actually do anything to enforce the individual mandate, so the effect on the ACA will again be negligible.
If it’s unconstitutional and will have no effect in the long run, why are folks happy if their state passes a MM act.? It’s the same thing isn’t it? MJ is regulated by the Feds, so state laws are unconstitutional, right? Explain the difference between the two types of laws please.
I’m disappointed that it passed though it doesn’t surprise me in the least. I’m at least plesantly surprised that nearly a million people showed up to an off-year primary. That’s about 1/6 of the state and 1/5 of the potential voting public.
Very few independents, as I was pitching a fit about earlier in the thread. Going by the Senate results, some 315,000 Democrats and some 575,00 Republicans voted, 3500 Libertarians and 2000 Constitution (eyeball addition by approximation, I didn’t use a calculator), leaving only about 45,000 who voted who are not registered in a party.
I just don’t think that a state-wide (or county-wide–St. Louis County voted to go to an elected assessor yesterday) referendum or proposition should be allowed to go on a primary election ballot. There were also tax measures and other items for various locations here and there. Either put them on the municipal ballot in the spring if appropriate, or on the main ballot in November, but it is ridiculous to vote on them as part of a primary.
It looks like they’re using one amendment, 1.330–“No law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.”–to sneak in another, 375.1175–which is very obscure.
Further, it’s being sold as a “referendum on Obama.” :rolleyes: Whatever, we know he lost the state to McCain.
That’s not how a referendum should work. Practically no one understands the second part well enough to make a judgment on it. And federal supremacy voids the whole thing.
There is nothing legit about this mess. It really should be struck down in court, which is probably the plan; then the GOP can lambaste through the next election cycle whichever judge has the thankless job of interjecting reality into things.
I voted no. Removing the individual mandate isn’t offensive to me; this stupid bill very much is.
I see things like this posted around the net constantly. I was always under the impression that the 10th amendment to the constitution stated the exact opposite.
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.
Perhaps someone could explain to me how the federal government bypasses this, or why it is not applicable in this situation (or others such as medical marijuana).
The health care law is unconstitutional. The government telling me that I must buy something, especially insurance is insane. But hey, you people voted for Obama and this is what you get.
And one of the powers delegated to the federal government is to look out for the general welfare, and another is to levy taxes. This Missouri proposition is trying to deny that the federal government has either of those powers, and is therefore unconstitutional.
Captain Midnight, you might want to double-check the meaning of the word “unconstitutional”. It doesn’t mean “something I don’t like”, as you seem to think.
Even if federal supremacy doesn’t stick a fork in it, the following fact remains: that most people voted against an individual mandate, while ignoring the bewildering second clause which is barely related & hugely obscure. It’s a trick. Somebody’s getting up to something.
And the individual mandate, as offensive as it is, was part of the deal to get the bill, with its increase in Medicaid & banning of rescission, passed. Even our Democratic US Senator was against the individual mandate in the negotiations, but voted for the final bill. That’s sometimes how it works.
Is the mandate really such a horrible thing? Should we repeal just that one bit? I’m not sure. But most of the giant health care bill was for the good; the mandate is an acceptable price in my mind.
IANAL but I think you are wrong about that, a tax is sent to the government not to an insurance company. A tax would have been a public option. My point forcing citizens to hand over money to private businesses is wrong.