User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    559
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Hummmm... Really quite on this subject

    By DAVID A. LIEB

    JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a key provision of President Barack Obama's sending a clear message of discontent to Washington and Democrats less than 100 days before the midterm elections.
    About 71 percent of Missouri voters backed a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.
    The Missouri law conflicts with a federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalties starting in 2014.
    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.
    "To us, it symbolized everything," said Annette Read, a tea party participant from suburban St. Louis who quit her online retail job to lead a yearlong campaign for the Missouri ballot measure. "The entire frustration in the country ... how our government has misspent, how they haven't listened to the people, this measure in general encompassed all of that."

    Missouri's ballot also featured primaries for U.S. Senate, Congress and numerous state legislative seats. But at many polling places, voters said they were most passionate about the health insurance referendum.
    "I believe that the general public has been duped about the benefits of the health care proposal," said Mike Sampson of Jefferson City, an independent emergency management contractor, who voted for the proposition. "My guess is federal law will in fact supersede state law, but we need to send a message to the folks in Washington, D.C., that people in the hinterlands are not happy."
    The health care referendum was helped by a high Republican turnout. In Missouri's open primaries, voters do not have to register their party affiliation. But far more people picked Republican ballots than Democratic ones Tuesday.
    Republican lawmakers originally wanted to place the measure on Missouri's November ballot in the form of a state constitutional amendment. But to avoid a Democratic filibuster in the state Senate, they agreed to scale it back to a proposed law and place it on the primary ballot.
    Legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana and Virginia have passed similar statutes without referring them to the ballot, and voters in Arizona and Oklahoma will vote on such measures as state constitutional amendments in November. Missouri was the first state to challenge aspects of the federal law in a referendum.
    The intent of the federal requirement is to broaden the pool of healthy people covered by insurers, thus holding down premiums that otherwise would rise because of separate provisions prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people with poor health or pre-existing conditions.
    But the insurance requirement has been one of the most contentious parts of the new federal law. Public officials in well over a dozen states, including Missouri, have filed lawsuits claiming Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by requiring citizens to buy health insurance.
    Federal courts are expected to weigh in well before the insurance requirement takes effect about whether the federal health care overhaul is constitutional.
    The Missouri Hospital Association spent $400,000 warning people that passage of the ballot measure could increase hospitals' costs for treating the uninsured, but there was little opposition to the measure from either grass-roots organizations or from the unions and consumer groups that backed the federal overhaul.
    Some Missouri voters who opposed the ballot measure cited a potential cost-shift to those who have insurance if some people are allowed to continue visiting emergency rooms without insurance. Other opponents of Missouri's ballot measure said they wanted to give Obama's health care plan a chance to work.
    "I don't think people should be walking around sick," said Kathy Ward, a 57-year-old Columbia nurse, who voted against Missouri's law. "The fact remains, people have the right to have health care, and they should get it. It help makes a healthier society."
    Last edited by Nobody; 4th August 2010 at 12:22 PM.

  2. #2
    Ms. Peckerhead Double Deuce Champion Queen Jewels Champion Ray Ray Shuffle Champion Twins Champion Bunch - Time Trial Champion Znax Champion Zoo Keeper Champion Sobics School Champion Swap a Smiley Champion Makos Champion Dino Drop Champion Flower Frenzy Champion Drop Bloxs Champion Some Puzzle Champion Funny Bubbles Champion CubeZ Champion Fun Fun Animals Champion Fruit Fabriek Champion Raft Wars Champion Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion Raft Wars Champion Flash Pegs Champion Crime Puzzle Champion Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    19,128
    Thanks
    2,833
    Thanked 3,559 Times in 2,406 Posts
    Oh, yes, the dreaded individual mandate the Republicans barely mentioned during the debate over this bill because they were too busy focusing on "death panels".

    Better late than never. They've come to see Jane Hamshire's point of view. How ironic.

  3. #3
    Best Garage Ever! Array
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    2,253
    Thanks
    125
    Thanked 192 Times in 147 Posts
    "I don't think people should be walking around sick," said Kathy Ward, a 57-year-old Columbia nurse, who voted against Missouri's law. "The fact remains, people have the right to have health care, and they should get it. It help makes a healthier society."
    There is no fact in this quote... unless you want to infer the "fact" that the person speaking is an idiot. There is no "right to healthcare" any more than there is a "right to eat Oreo cookies" or a "right to drive an Audi". Of course, if you want to buy your own Oreos and Audis then more power to you.

  4. #4
    PeeK A Boo Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    FEMA REGION IV
    Posts
    6,739
    Thanks
    1,710
    Thanked 1,058 Times in 790 Posts
    People are so damn confused nowadays that they do not even understand what rights are. That is why you hear things like this, but it is all good cause the day is coming when all the people will suffer because of the rights of the few.

  5. #5
    Yes, aviator means pilot Array
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    686
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 29 Times in 29 Posts
    I would say that health care is an extension of the right to life that we all enjoy. That is exactly why the government should NOT control health care. When the government controls the means to which you exercise your rights, they control the action that you consider a right. Since rights exist outside of government control and are held by the individual, government control = privilege.

    In the case of health care, the means is money and/or insurance and the action is living. So, government control = the loss of the right to life.

  6. #6
    Ms. Peckerhead Double Deuce Champion Queen Jewels Champion Ray Ray Shuffle Champion Twins Champion Bunch - Time Trial Champion Znax Champion Zoo Keeper Champion Sobics School Champion Swap a Smiley Champion Makos Champion Dino Drop Champion Flower Frenzy Champion Drop Bloxs Champion Some Puzzle Champion Funny Bubbles Champion CubeZ Champion Fun Fun Animals Champion Fruit Fabriek Champion Raft Wars Champion Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion Raft Wars Champion Flash Pegs Champion Crime Puzzle Champion Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    19,128
    Thanks
    2,833
    Thanked 3,559 Times in 2,406 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    I would say that health care is an extension of the right to life that we all enjoy. That is exactly why the government should NOT control health care. When the government controls the means to which you exercise your rights, they control the action that you consider a right. Since rights exist outside of government control and are held by the individual, government control = privilege.

    In the case of health care, the means is money and/or insurance and the action is living. So, government control = the loss of the right to life.
    So maybe we should get rid of government regulation in this area all together. Why should the govenment tell doctors how much education they need? Shouldn't that be a business decision?

  7. #7
    Yes, aviator means pilot Array
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    686
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 29 Times in 29 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    So maybe we should get rid of government regulation in this area all together. Why should the govenment tell doctors how much education they need? Shouldn't that be a business decision?
    Come back when you have something other than a logical fallacy.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    729
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
    Obama's going to have lots of states to sue pretty soon.

  9. #9
    Librarian Array
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    10,674
    Thanks
    607
    Thanked 1,253 Times in 964 Posts
    As the California judge has just shown us with Gay Marriage, it does not matter what the people think. A minority opinion led us to Obama care and they will try to keep it in force through minority rule.
    "“Guess what women are taking about? I don’t care if they’re stay-at-home mothers or working mothers or grandmothers. They’re talking about jobs and the legacy of debt that we are leaving our children.” Ann Romney

    "Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country." - Margaret Thatcher



  10. #10
    Account Disabled
    everyone should be seen in case of life or death in an emergency room, i agree there. but we already have that. Healthcare insurance is totally different. if i can afford to pay cash for services why should i have to carry insurance. even if i can't afford to pay cash why should i have to. Just because i have it that doesn't mean i will use it. so then i'm throwing money away on something i don't use and was forced to buy. Now i can compromise. Parents should have to carry on their children under the age of 18 it if they can't afford to pay cash for services. other than that you shouldn't have to carry it because you are only hurting yourself. It's your life. It's not like a car where if you wreck your could be damaging someones property.


 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Obama Keeping Bush Policy On This Subject
    By Oberdan in forum General Political Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 21st February 2009, 10:18 AM
  2. Republicans: Anything to change the subject
    By 2lane in forum General Political Discussion
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 7th October 2008, 08:39 PM
  3. Presidential Pardons-Subject Them To Congressional Advice & Consent
    By Devil505 in forum General Political Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18th January 2008, 03:05 PM
  4. New Thread, Same Subject
    By Sparta in forum Feedback, Suggestions & Support
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11th September 2007, 11:29 AM
  5. The "gay" subject
    By getreal in forum General Political Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 27th December 2006, 09:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2