Missouri Proposition C (declare individual mandate unconstitutional) Results

[Epic]

http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/ballotissueresults.asp?eid=283&arc=

667,000 YES (don't do health care individual mandate )
271,000 NO (health care individual mandate is fine)

turnout: 65% republican, 35% democrat (among population that voted in either R or D primary)

71% - 29% ABSOLUTE ANNIHILATION

[Agorism]

idk even know what that is for. explain

[Epic]

idk even know what that is for. explain

it's about the health care individual mandate, as the title says.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=nws:1&q=missouri+proposition+c&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

[Acala]

Very cool! That is like nullification by proposition. Next comes mass resistance such that they can't enforce. And if they try to enforce, they just enrage and unify the opposition.

[noxagol]

Very cool! That is like nullification by proposition. Next comes mass resistance such that they can't enforce. And if they try to enforce, they just enrage and unify the opposition.

Which is of course what they are going to do, they will try to enforce the mandate anyways.

[healthpellets]

just to give a little background...

The text of Prop C was passed by the legislature, and the Dems didn't want to have the Dem governor to have to veto it, and the Repubs agreed to put it on the ballot. the compromise to get it on the ballot, it appears, was to put it on the Primary ballot, and not the general ballot.

[MozoVote]

This backfired on the Dems because the GOP races were more interesting. Now this vote will be in the headlines tomorrow and energize efforts in other states.

[libertybrewcity]

that passed with flying colors. How many states have that now?

[MozoVote]

Oklahoma has it in November.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Health_care_measure_clears_Oklahoma_House,_pencile d_into_November_ballot

[healthpellets]

and just came across this little "gem":


A legacy of nullification

By Daniel Ponder | Posted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Our Constitution calls for the federal government to tackle national issues like health care, but politicians are trying to get around this mandate by using a doctrine known as nullification, which is as old as the Republic, but poses real dangers to our form of government.

Nullification was a theory advanced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison that says states can choose within their borders to reject actions of the federal government if the actions are deemed unconstitutional. But they used this theory in very specific and narrow circumstance when they urged Kentucky and Virginia to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Since then, nullification has been a failed theory throughout our history. But it is being resurrected increasingly today, and when Missourians vote Tuesday on Proposition C, the measure to opt out of national health care reform, the vote will be the latest example of the politics of misplaced nullification.

Let's be clear about the intention of our Founding Fathers — they believed that individual states absolutely have no right to decide which nationally made laws they would abide by and which they would not, unless the law was plainly unconstitutional. An example of an unconstitutional law might be if the government tried to establish an official religion. Health care clearly does not fall into this category.

One could question what the framers of our Constitution intended states' powers to be. The Constitution is relatively silent on "intent" because so much of it was hashed out in a series of compromises. Pointing to what some framers intended surely is not enough. For example, the Bush administration's insistence that it had the power to expand executive power was compatible with Alexander Hamilton's thinking, but Hamilton's view was explicitly rejected by the other framers.

Nullification's biggest test led to the Civil War. It was thought to have ended then, but it has come up occasionally, most notably with respect to the issue of race. I believe its current popularity could weaken our Constitution, which provides preferable avenues to question the federal government's legislative actions.

President Andrew Jackson argued rightly that if a law is wrong for one state, it should be presumed to be wrong for all states, and the only way to determine such questions is in the judicial courts and the court of public opinion. Why aren't we following these paths? Simple answer — politics.

The would-be nullifiers in Missouri point to the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states those powers not explicitly granted to the federal government. But the Constitution often conflicts with itself, tilting toward states rights in the 10th Amendment, then leaning heavily toward the national government via a number of sweeping clauses. And whether health care reform is a good idea, it is a federal issue based on legal readings of numerous court decisions that find in favor of the national government over states rights.

Much of the history of nullification rests on the idea that the Supreme Court is not necessarily the final arbiter of the constitutionality of the laws. Indeed, the framers supported the idea that the court would invalidate state laws that encroached on federal jurisdiction. It is not clear they thought that the court should have the power of judicial review over federal laws passed by the co-equal branches of Congress and the president. Regardless, nullification essentially would return the country to the state it was under the Articles of Confederation, which didn't exactly work out.

Why not use existing processes explicitly contained in our Constitution? If health care reform is so unpalatable that it should be overturned, a constitutional amendment would do the trick. So would the people's voice via the ballot box.

Missourians should recognize that the nation cannot endure with a two-tiered system in something as fundamental as the health of its people. Either all states should abide by health care reform or none of them should. If the majority supports the latter, there are other, far better means available to reaching that conclusion. Andrew Jackson was wrong about a lot of things, particularly slavery and Indian removal. But he was right about the dangers of nullification.

Daniel Ponder is associate professor of political science at Drury University in Springfield, Mo., and author of "Good Advice: Information and Policy Making in the White House."

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/article_ab370ff5-cd17-59d5-88fa-e5b66f9ee494.html

[Epic]

Either all states should abide by health care reform or none of them should.

So.... I guess this guy thinks that states should not be laboratories of experimentation, but rather subservient to the cartelized collective of states.

[Epic]

Victory margin keeps growing.... 75.8% now in support of killing individual mandate

[low preference guy]

Let's be clear about the intention of our Founding Fathers — they believed that individual states absolutely have no right to decide which nationally made laws they would abide by and which they would not, unless the law was plainly unconstitutional. An example of an unconstitutional law might be if the government tried to establish an official religion. Health care clearly does not fall into this category.

Why doesn't health care fall under that category? Of course it does!

[healthpellets]

Why doesn't health care fall under that category? Of course it does!

not if you're some liberal federal government loving poli sci professor.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Oh, you mean; Big Pharma, Corporate Hospitals, and Health Insurance corporations couldn't lobby to buy the votes in Missouri? ;)

You know this is a lesson in futility, because the FEDS will rule FEDERAL LAW over STATE LAW and the SCUMBAGS on the Supreme Court will support their partners in crime.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Why doesn't health care fall under that category? Of course it does!

And where was that made "clear?"

[healthpellets]

You know this is a lesson in futility, because the FEDS will rule FEDERAL LAW over STATE LAW and the SCUMBAGS on the Supreme Court will support their partners in crime.

i'm wondering how this will proceed.

first, will some group in Missouri file suit to challenge the law? if so, what standing?

second, will the feds come in and file suit? that should be FUN!

[low preference guy]

And where was that made "clear?"

It was made "clear" because the author said so! Don't question University Professors!

[MozoVote]

Victory margin keeps growing.... 75.8% now in support of killing individual mandate

While I'm a bit surprised at the margin of victory, I'm not surprised to see the numbers improve. MO tends to count the votes in the big cities first, and the rural conservative votes trickle in toward the end.

[Working Poor]

Andrew Jackson was wrong about a lot of things, particularly slavery and Indian removal. But he was right about the dangers of nullification.

Well he should have been shot for saying that.

[libertybrewcity]

200k people that like the mandate? dear god. that is still a lot of people. It really should be zero:)

[Southron]

200k people that like the mandate? dear god. that is still a lot of people. It really should be zero:)

If they like slavery so much we could bring it back in the voluntary form and they could voluntarily be my slaves.:D

[South Park Fan]

Does this proposition actually have teeth (nullification), or is it nonbinding like those state sovereignty resolutions?

[healthpellets]

Does this proposition actually have teeth (nullification), or is it nonbinding like those state sovereignty resolutions?

the ballot language:


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.


actual text of the statute:

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills101/biltxt/truly/HB1764T.HTM


AN ACT

To repeal section 375.1175, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to insurance, with a referendum clause.



Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Section 375.1175, RSMo, is repealed and two new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 1.330 and 375.1175, to read as follows:
1.330. 1. No law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.
2. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required by law or rule to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required by law or rule to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.
3. Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person's options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.
4. This section does not:
(1) Affect which health care services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide;
(2) Affect which health care services are permitted by law;
(3) Prohibit care provided under workers' compensation as provided under state law;
(4) Affect laws or regulations in effect as of January 1, 2010;
(5) Affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing a person or employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider or hospital for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.
5. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean:
(1) "Compel", any penalties or fines;
(2) "Direct payment or pay directly", payment for lawful health care services without a public or private third party, not including an employer, paying for any portion of the service;
(3) "Health care system", any public or private entity whose function or purpose is the management of, processing of, enrollment of individuals for or payment for, in full or in part, health care services or health care data or health care information for its participants;
(4) "Lawful health care services", any health-related service or treatment to the extent that the service or treatment is permitted or not prohibited by law or regulation that may be provided by persons or businesses otherwise permitted to offer such services; and
(5) "Penalties or fines", any civil or criminal penalty or fine, tax, salary or wage withholding or surcharge or any named fee with a similar effect established by law or rule by a government established, created or controlled agency that is used to punish or discourage the exercise of rights protected under this section.
375.1175. 1. The director may petition the court for an order directing him to liquidate a domestic insurer or an alien insurer domiciled in this state on the basis:
(1) Of any ground for an order of rehabilitation as specified in section 375.1165, whether or not there has been a prior order directing the rehabilitation of the insurer;
(2) That the insurer is insolvent;
(3) That the insurer is in such condition that the further transaction of business would be hazardous, financially or otherwise, to its policyholders, its creditors or the public;
(4) That the insurer is found to be in such condition after examination that it could not meet the requirements for incorporation and authorization specified in the law under which it was incorporated or is doing business; or
(5) That the insurer has ceased to transact the business of insurance for a period of one year.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a domestic insurer organized as a stock insurance company may voluntarily dissolve and liquidate as a corporation under sections 351.462 to 351.482, provided that:
(1) The director, in his or her sole discretion, approves the articles of dissolution prior to filing such articles with the secretary of state. In determining whether to approve or disapprove the articles of dissolution, the director shall consider, among other factors, whether:
(a) The insurer's annual financial statements filed with the director show no written insurance premiums for five years; and
(b) The insurer has demonstrated that all policyholder claims have been satisfied or have been transferred to another insurer in a transaction approved by the director; and
(c) An examination of the insurer pursuant to sections 374.202 to 374.207 has been completed within the last five years; and
(2) The domestic insurer files with the secretary of state a copy of the director's approval, certified by the director, along with articles of dissolution as provided in section 351.462 or 351.468.

[sailingaway]

Woo Hoo!!!

[South Park Fan]

the ballot language:




actual text of the statute:

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills101/biltxt/truly/HB1764T.HTM

Okay, good! I was worried that they were just writing the president a "really angry letter".

[trey4sports]

well, here on the local news they constantly throw in "but federal law trumps state law" so I doubt that that this will acutally effect any type of change. I'm happy it passed though

[healthpellets]

well, here on the local news they constantly throw in "but federal law trumps state law" so I doubt that that this will acutally effect any type of change. I'm happy it passed though

pretty annoying to watch some blonde beeotch on the news sit there all smug and say "Missouri Prop C passed, but as we've noted throughout the day, it is in contradiction to Federal law and really doesn't mean anything."

The fcuk it doesn't.

It means everything.

[nate895]

pretty annoying to watch some blonde beeotch on the news sit there all smug and say "Missouri Prop C passed, but as we've noted throughout the day, it is in contradiction to Federal law and really doesn't mean anything."

The fcuk it doesn't.

It means everything.

Wrong answer! The Federal law doesn't mean anything because it contradicts it. I hope Missouri's Government has the balls to stand on the principle of the matter against Federal tyranny. Don't cave in like South Carolina did.

Nobody watches these idiots on the local news, besides old people, nowadays anyway.

[healthpellets]

i asked before but got no answer, so i'll ask again...

how do you think the feds will impose their will on Missourians? think they'd be ballsy enough to come in with lawsuits? or will they wait for someone to "violate" their "mandate" relying on missouri law?

[Liberty Rebellion]

i asked before but got no answer, so i'll ask again...

how do you think the feds will impose their will on Missourians? think they'd be ballsy enough to come in with lawsuits? or will they wait for someone to "violate" their "mandate" relying on missouri law?

probably like they handle medical marijuana. They'll fine you and if you don't pay up, they'll throw you in a federal prison

I voted for Prop C and against my municipality issuing $40,000,000 in bonds for erosion control and planning.

[HOLLYWOOD]

and just came across this little "gem":



http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/article_ab370ff5-cd17-59d5-88fa-e5b66f9ee494.html (http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/article_ab370ff5-cd17-59d5-88fa-e5b66f9ee494.html)

May Danny needs to change his major from political science to history.



Media Contact:
Dr. Dan Ponder
Associate Professor of Political Science
Office: (417) 873-7394
E-mail: deponder@drury.edu

http://www.drury.edu/multinl/story.cfm?nlid=246&id=25291

[michaelwise]

Immediately sell all health care stocks. The writing is on the wall.

[michaelwise]

The problem with health care is the price. Virtually no one can afford to pay for it out of pocket. The individual mandate just insures the price will rise into perpetuity. The complete and total economic collapse will make HC affordable again.

[trey4sports]

Immediately sell all health care stocks. The writing is on the wall.

well technically a "mandate" would increase the amount of health care insurance purchased. How would that be detrimental to those who sell health care insurance?

[low preference guy]

well technically a "mandate" would increase the amount of health care insurance purchased. How would that be detrimental to those who sell health care insurance?

he read that MO is trying to nullify obamacare and is betting that it will not be implemented

[johngr]

Oh, you mean; Big Pharma, Corporate Hospitals, and Health Insurance corporations couldn't lobby to buy the votes in Missouri? ;)

That only works with corrupt, cronyist politicians, not directly democratic citizen initiatives.