Obama-care gets voted down

[JustRalph]

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Missouri_Health_Care_Freedom,_Proposition_C_(2010)

This ballot measure in Missouri has passed with 73 percent of the vote against ObamaCare.

Check out the info above and from Hot Air here

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/03/results-coming-in-missouri-voters-tackle-obamacare-mandate-in-referendum/

Very interesting results all things considered

[bigmack]

50% of returns in now passing by 75%

http://minnesotaindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/pelosi-gavel-480x319.jpg

:lol:

[ArlJim78]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A sprawling bureaucratic giant - nobody knows how big it will be. That seems to be the result of President Obama's new health care law.
According to Politico, a recent report says it's "impossible" to estimate the number of agencies, boards and commissions created by the new law.

The Congressional Research Service report points to many reasons for this. First off, the parts of the law that create new bodies vary drastically. In some cases – the law gives lots of details... in other cases, barely a mention.

Also, the law authorizes some new entities... without saying who will do the appointing, or when it will happen.

And all this means some agencies could wait indefinitely for staff and funding... while others could multiply... creating quote "an indeterminate number of new organizations."

So far this is shaping up to be exactly what the critics were afraid it would be.

For example, there's one provision in the health care law that requires six separate agencies - six - within Health and Human Services to each establish an Office of Minority Health.

One Alaska health task force was supposed to meet by May 7... it held its first meeting July 16. Another committee on breast cancer was supposed to be set up by May 22. It's August 3 and it's still reviewing nominations for committee members.

There are also questions about the ability of Congress to carry out oversight of this sprawling mess. And there are concerns about the the number of appointments the General Accounting Office gets to make - at least 83 new members to six new boards.

Here’s my question to you: How will the government manage our health care if it's "impossible" to know the number of agencies, boards and commissions created by the new health care law?
Jack is not convinced, and it looks like folks in the show-me state aren't either.

[NJ Stinks]

Here's the ballot question in Missouri:

Official Ballot Title:







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.







Fair Ballot Language:













A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law 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. The amendment will also modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies.







A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding private health insurance, lawful healthcare services, and the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.
_________________________________________________

Does anyone know anybody who would vote for penalties that may be imposed on the people doing the actual voting? Has anyone ever seen a ballot question that asked people to vote for or against penalties? In this ballot question, voting no was the guaranteed winner. It proves nothing about how people feel about the main tenents of Obamacare like:

Bans insurance companies from casting off people after they get sick; No discrimination against kids with pre-existing conditions; Creating exchanges where people can choose a healthcare provider off a uniform comparison of benefits and costs; Bans lifetime limits on coverage; Letting parents cover their kids until the kids are 26. (I'm sure I forgot other good stuff off the top of my head.)

When people vote against the stuff in the last paragraph, I will know how they really feel about Obamacare.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010ballot/

[JustRalph]

Jim

No worries..........they have a chart to figure it all out

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ocare-chart.jpg

That's no joke either

[TJDave]

Or is it largely symbolic?

Can a State vote to opt out of federal law?

[andymays]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67308Y20100804

Excerpt:

Missouri (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.

[DJofSD]

I have a number of coworkers located in Missouri. One person in particular never offers any comment about things political. Except yesterday when he made sure to let every one know our meeting needed to be over on time so he could get to the polls and vote against Obama Care.

[Mike at A+]

I have a number of coworkers located in Missouri. One person in particular never offers any comment about things political. Except yesterday when he made sure to let every one know our meeting needed to be over on time so he could get to the polls and vote against Obama Care.
Gee, your friend must surely be a racist. :lol:

[mostpost]

Meaningless. Federal law trumps state law in this case. Regulation of interstate commerce etc.

In addition to which this covers one small part of the bill. The headline "Missouri rejects ObamaCare" is nonsense.

[andymays]

Meaningless. Federal law trumps state law in this case. Regulation of interstate commerce etc.

In addition to which this covers one small part of the bill. The headline "Missouri rejects ObamaCare" is nonsense.

It's a referendum on the Birthday Boy and the progressive agenda.

[DJofSD]

Meaningless. Federal law trumps state law in this case. Regulation of interstate commerce etc.

In addition to which this covers one small part of the bill. The headline "Missouri rejects ObamaCare" is nonsense.
B.S.

We'll see.

[prospector]

Meaningless.
is what obama and his crew consider the voters...since when have they listened to us...90 days and its "CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW!" :jump::jump:

[JustRalph]

Mods.........you can combine these two threads ?

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73684

[andymays]

Mods.........you can combine these two threads ?

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73684

My fault for not looking around this morning. Sorry!

[mostpost]

It's a referendum on the Birthday Boy and the progressive agenda.
A referendum in which only 24% of Missouri voters participated. And as NJ Stinks pointed out in the other thread on this subject:
Does anyone know anybody who would vote for penalties that may be imposed on the people doing the actual voting? Has anyone ever seen a ballot question that asked people to vote for or against penalties

[mostpost]

B.S.

We'll see.
I'm sure B.S. stands for "Brilliantly Stated." I thank you for your kind words. ;)

[andymays]

A referendum in which only 24% of Missouri voters participated. And as NJ Stinks pointed out in the other thread on this subject:

It all people were treated equally in the bill with no hidden agenda items then it may have faired better.

Read the chart.

[DJofSD]

I'm sure B.S. stands for "Brilliantly Stated." I thank you for your kind words. ;)
No. You guessed wrong (again).

See: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/On-Bullshit/Harry-G-Frankfurt/e/9780691122946/?itm=1&USRI=on+bullshit

[mostpost]

Or is it largely symbolic?

Can a State vote to opt out of federal law?
They cannot. The federal government cannot pass any law regarding matters completely within a state's jurisdiction, but if they did a state could not pass a law rejecting the federal law. The matter would have to be settled in court.
In this case, the regulation of interstate commerce clause clearly applies.

[TJDave]

They cannot. The federal government cannot pass any law regarding matters completely within a state's jurisdiction, but if they did a state could not pass a law rejecting the federal law. The matter would have to be settled in court.
In this case, the regulation of interstate commerce clause clearly applies.

So.....In addition to paying for health care they don't want Missourians will be paying for elections they didn't need. :lol:

[ArlJim78]

They cannot. The federal government cannot pass any law regarding matters completely within a state's jurisdiction, but if they did a state could not pass a law rejecting the federal law. The matter would have to be settled in court.
In this case, the regulation of interstate commerce clause clearly applies.
No it doesn't clearly apply and it will certainly be struck down by the supreme court. As has been pointed out numerous times there is a difference between regulating commerce, and requiring commerce.

[bigmack]

In this case, the regulation of interstate commerce clause clearly applies.
We shall see. Though keep your hopes high that the will of the people will not be realized while Pelosi and all your hero's tell us little people how it's gonna be.

Never forget, you are a sad little robot for sad little causes.

71 to 29! That's what I call a clear message. While you live in a world of minutia and legalese fire-up that DVR for the next several months and watch how Americans take care of business.

[DJofSD]

IOW, mostpost, you're backing Phipps and War Admiral while America is squarely behind Seabiscuit.

[mostpost]

We shall see. Though keep your hopes high that the will of the people will not be realized while Pelosi and all your hero's tell us little people how it's gonna be.

Never forget, you are a sad little robot for sad little causes.

71 to 29! That's what I call a clear message. While you live in a world of minutia and legalese fire-up that DVR for the next several months and watch how Americans take care of business.
24% turnout in Missouri. 71% of 24% is 18% of 100%. :lol: :lol:
Public approval of Obamacare is on a steady rise.
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8084.cfm%20
A few excerpts:
The July Health Tracking Poll indicates overall public support for the health reform law is steady from June, while unfavorable views of the law have trended downward. Half the public (50%) now expresses a favorable view of the law, while 35 percent say they have an unfavorable opinion (down from 41% in June).



large shares of seniors mistakenly believe the law includes provisions that cut some previously universal Medicare benefits and creates “death panels.” Half of seniors (50%) say the law will cut benefits that were previously provided to all people on Medicare, and more than a third (36%) incorrectly believe the law will “allow a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare.”

Despite the fact that Medicare’s actuaries predict the health reform law will extend the life of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund by 12 years (from 2017 to 2029), only 14 percent of seniors know this and nearly half (45%) of seniors think the health reform law will weaken the financial condition of the fund.


We can see from this that much of the opposition to Obama care is based on incorrect information. As the true information reaches more people, more people will support it.

Except you.

[JustRalph]

These lawsuits are already in motion. This thing will be decided before anything to do with this vote hits the docket

btw Mosty.........If I am not mistaken, those numbers you quote on Voting turnout etc are almost identical to the ones where Clinton beat Dole. I bet you weren't laughing about that turnout.............

[mostpost]

These lawsuits are already in motion. This thing will be decided before anything to do with this vote hits the docket

btw Mosty.........If I am not mistaken, those numbers you quote on Voting turnout etc are almost identical to the ones where Clinton beat Dole. I bet you weren't laughing about that turnout.............
I put the two :lol: symbols after my comment because I couldn't find a "tongue in cheek" icon. Obviously everyone who didn't vote would not have voted "no". Don't know about Clinton V. Dole.

[bigmack]

24% turnout in Missouri. 71% of 24% is 18% of 100%.
Who's dumb enough to extrapolate voter turn-out @ 100%? Only you :lol: :lol:

[Mike at A+]

Who's dumb enough to extrapolate voter turn-out @ 100%? Only you :lol: :lol:
Just heard that the turnout for this vote was TWICE what it was in Senate primaries.

[mostpost]

Just heard that the turnout for this vote was TWICE what it was in Senate primaries.
Voting on proposition "C" = 938,761
Voting in Missouri Senate Primaries = 898,763
Figures from state of Missouri Official website.

Multiple choice question.
You got your figures from
A. Rush
B. Glen
C. Sean
D. I made the whole thing up

[Mike at A+]

Voting on proposition "C" = 938,761
Voting in Missouri Senate Primaries = 898,763
Figures from state of Missouri Official website.

Multiple choice question.
You got your figures from
A. Rush
B. Glen
C. Sean
D. I made the whole thing up

E. Heard it on TV in the background

[Mike at A+]

Voting on proposition "C" = 938,761
Voting in Missouri Senate Primaries = 898,763
Figures from state of Missouri Official website.

Multiple choice question.
You got your figures from
A. Rush
B. Glen
C. Sean
D. I made the whole thing up
After a closer look at the MO website, I see the figures you quoted. But that leads to a question. Is the 898,763 primary votes the same as "turnout"? I see 17 different candidates for 4 different parties. Are voters in MO restricted to one vote for only one of those 17 candidates or can they vote in primaries other than their registration? Also, can they cast more than one vote within any one particular party? Rules differ from state to state on this. Obviously the 938,761 votes on Prop C IS turnout as everyone gets one vote, yes or no.

[bigmack]

24% turnout in Missouri. 71% of 24% is 18% of 100%.
Keep diggin' and tell us how low 24% is for an August primary in MO

[mostpost]

After a closer look at the MO website, I see the figures you quoted. But that leads to a question. Is the 898,763 primary votes the same as "turnout"? I see 17 different candidates for 4 different parties. Are voters in MO restricted to one vote for only one of those 17 candidates or can they vote in primaries other than their registration? Also, can they cast more than one vote within any one particular party? Rules differ from state to state on this. Obviously the 938,761 votes on Prop C IS turnout as everyone gets one vote, yes or no.
You can only vote for one candidate in one party's primary. In some states you can cross over and vote in a primary when you are not registered with that party, but then you can not vote in the primary of your original party.
I don't know what total turnout in Missouri was in terms of number of voters, but it was greater than the number of primary votes, and greater than the number of proposition "C" votes. You are not required to vote on any particular issue or candidate, and I'm sure people skipped Prop "C" as well as primary.

[Tom]

Keep diggin' and tell us how low 24% is for an August primary in MO

Mac, remember, mostie is from Chicago, where he is used to seeing voter turnout at around 200%.

[JustRalph]

Mac, remember, mostie is from Chicago, where he is used to seeing voter turnout at around 200%.
:lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

In this case, the regulation of interstate commerce clause clearly applies.

BO didn't think so because the defense the feds plan on using is that the law does not require anyone to buy anything, since it's a law on taxation -- which, of course, prior to all this mess, BO insisted the bill was not taxation legislation.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Mac, remember, mostie is from Chicago, where he is used to seeing voter turnout at around 200%.
:D

Not to mention all the absentee ballets stuffed in his bag from people like Kum Hia Nao, Dum Gai, Ai Bang Mai Ni, No Pah King, Yu So Dum, Wi Go Nao, Yu Stin Ki & others...

[jballscalls]

cant a judge just overturn this?