The People Speak
Missouri has long been considered a bellwether state. They just rang the bell.
Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a key provision of President Barack Obama’s health care law, 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.
Good for them, and good for this country for being civil and standing up to this Administration in the right way.
The healthcare law is unconstitutional. Plain and simple.
Furthermore, I get a kick out of how quickly this country has turned its back on the President, and the unbelievable disconnect between the public and the congress.
I saw a poll this morning that said 84% of Americans think we are on the wrong track, while 67% of congress thinks we are on the right track…. That is a 151 point separation…
We are on the precipice of true political revolution, and I have Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid (to a lesser extent) to thank for that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 0906 hrs
Oh, yeah…
And while even Gallup is showing Obama’s approval rating in the low 40’s. He is still blaming all of his problems on Bush, even while his administration is trying to triangulate a way to extend the majority of the “Bush tax cuts”. I know that the Presidency is a marathon, or at least a 1500m, not a sprint… but this guy was supposed to change everything, the status quo was eliminated, destroyed, wasn’t it?
I have never seen such amateur tactics from a “genius”, a “gifted speaker”, a “true leader”, a “uniter”, a “post racial” leader….
The man is a joke, and we are getting to watch what he is really made of play out every day.
I hope that more states, including Wisconsin, especially with regards to the train, have the cajones to stand up and assert their constitutional right to sovereignty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 0915 hrs
Just wait until congress begins proposing their “fixes” to the healthcare bill….
He really is going to be “the best one term President ever” isn’t he?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 0916 hrs
I wonder when Holder will announce filing suit against another state.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 0922 hrs
Essentially this was a Republican primary vote against Obama’s healthcare reforms. Republicans had much higher turnout than Democrats in Missouri, largely because of spirited primaries at the top of the ticket and in congressional districts in Republican strongholds.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 0934 hrs
Republican turnout led Democratic turnout in this primary-night election (there were no real D contests) by more than 2-1 ... which is just about the same result by which the proposition passed.
It is really dishonest to suggest that this ballot measure represents an accurate measure of Missouri’s feelings on the matter.
Posted by folkbum on August 04, 2010 at 0936 hrs
Republican turnout led Democratic turnout in this primary-night election (there were no real D contests) by more than 2-1 ... which is just about the same result by which the proposition passed.
It is really dishonest to suggest that this ballot measure represents an accurate measure of Missouri’s feelings on the matter.
Oh, for Pete’s sake…
This is the same logic the Democrats wanted to sweep under the rug when they won in PA-12. They assured us that it had nothing to do with the top-of-the-ticket Senate Democrat primary, but rather, had everything to do with a rejection of Republicans.
Some folks need to go back to the smoke-filled backrooms and figure out what there message/excuses are going to be so that they at least ring intellectually solid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 0945 hrs
You’re right, Publius, no Democrat could possibly have won the PA-12 without it being a special election on primary night ...
Posted by folkbum on August 04, 2010 at 0952 hrs
You know damn well that’s not what I’m saying, so you can stop with the rhetorical sleight of hand and straw man building.
PA-12 went legitimately to the Democrat, but the rhetoric in the days afterwards was that it was a resounding rejection of the GOP and I’m willing to bet that even you believed that it had nothing to do with the Dems driving turnout in key areas (including PA-12) of the state.
So it is in Missouri… so to use your logic, the rejection of ObamaCare in Missouri couldn’t possibly be on its merits but rather must be because of the primary turnout.
See how I did that? I can use rhetorical sleight of hand, too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1014 hrs
Oh, go back to your Palin worshipping, Publius. You teabaggers are so annoying.
Posted by folkbum on August 04, 2010 at 1032 hrs
Any time politicians work to put ballot initiatives on a non-November ballot, you know they’re trying to game the results based in part on turnout. As a matter of procedure, I think there’s hardly ever a good reason to have any kind of referendum on a non-November ballot in an election year.
Put this same initiative on the November ballot and I bet it wins somewhere around 58/42.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 04, 2010 at 1101 hrs
Wow…a little testy today, aren’t we?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1101 hrs
It is really dishonest to suggest that this ballot measure represents an accurate measure of Missouri’s feelings on the matter.
A ridiculous excuse.
Are you implying that Democrats did not know that a very important proposition was on the ballot? It wasn’t advertised?
Did the Democrat’s voters just not care to offer an opinion on the matter? If so, then it would seem that health care reform is not an important issue to them at all.
Face it… polling data shows that people hate the idea of Obamacare. The election of Scott Brown showed it, and now this election in Missouri has clarified the point in a landslide.
Whether they stayed home and ignored the contest or they went out and offered their opinion at the ballot box… Missouri has said NO! to Obamacare.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1130 hrs
Are you implying that Democrats did not know that a very important proposition was on the ballot?
A non-binding referendum? Yeah, let’s all drop everything and throw our resources at that.
Posted by folkbum on August 04, 2010 at 1136 hrs
Well, the non-binding referendum is probably just symbolic, but you liberals have a history of voting for symbolism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1156 hrs
A non-binding referendum? Yeah, let’s all drop everything and throw our resources at that.
True… having spent even more money than they did, the loss would have been even more significant.
Will you say that in November as well, though?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1203 hrs
Will you say that in November as well, though?
Isn’t that lawsuit brought by Virginia and other states regarding the constitutionality of the insurance requirement going to settle the healthcare bill? And until that happens, federal law trumps state law correct? Like how the state of california allows medicinal pot, but it is still illegal on the federal level.
I actually am looking forward to the November elections. I don’t think it is going to go as well as some democrats think, but at the same time don’t think it is going to go as well as most republicans think.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1314 hrs
liberalssavetheworld’s comments got me thinking…
Doesn’t anyone find it disconcerting at all that in under two years, the Obama Administration is in federal court defending federal policy against two high-profile states’ rights cases?
One is probably standard and expected, but two? And I’m sure there are always errant lawsuits re: states’ rights, but these two (Arizona’s and Virginia’s) are high profile and seemingly legitimate.
At what point do people ask: is there a legitimate sea-change happening here where the federal government may be dancing next to - if not crossed - a line where people are concerned about the reach and legitimacy of federal law?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1325 hrs
Would be interesting watching Acorn hand out free smoking materials to promote health care.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1327 hrs
Oh, I’m sure after all the trouble they got into earlier that they have switched to handing out liquor by now.
I suppose that since Barack smokes, that might be ok these days though.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1335 hrs
Any time politicians work to put ballot initiatives on a non-November ballot, you know they’re trying to game the results based in part on turnout.
Yeah, that’s what they did RS:
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.
Of course, you wouldn’t want to get the truth in the way of a good argument.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1403 hrs
is there a legitimate sea-change happening here where the federal government may be dancing next to - if not crossed - a line where people are concerned about the reach and legitimacy of federal law?
I don’t think AZ has as much standing in this matter as you are giving them. The judge that block parts of if from going into effect stated that it “...interferes with longstanding federal authority over immigration and could lead to harassment of citizens and legal immigrants.”
In addition further down in the below article, “...she said, citing a previous Supreme Court case, a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.’”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29arizona.html
The healthcare reform bill is a little more interesting. The federal government is pushing the limits of interstate commerce on this. I find it interesting, however that conservatives are worried about the reach of federal law on this issue, but had no problems when Bush expanded wiretapping in the us. So on one hand, conservatives have problems with required healthcare, but not when your own government removes restrictions on spying on it’s own citizens.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1405 hrs
[...] however that conservatives are worried about the reach of federal law on this issue, but had no problems when Bush expanded wiretapping in the United States [sic].
Some conservatives had/have reservations about the law. Me? I’m generally agnostic. But in that case, it is apples to oranges. The PATRIOT Act (disagree or agree with it) was ostensibly meant to strengthen and modernize US law to fight a previously misunderstood threat and to fight terrorism. And even at that, there are provisions within the law to ensure controls on individuals’ privacy and a course of redress should those rights be infringed.
No such exceptions, controls, or means of redress exist in the federal healthcare laws.
And even at that, The PATRIOT Act - as a matter of national security - is clearly NOT the purview of the states, but yet still provides the mechanisms and tools for local law enforcement to cooperate with Los Federales.
Arizona was acting in the absence of federal activity and never exceeded federal law enforcement measures as opposed to the feds arguable overreach into activities that are being performed already by the states (providing healthcare).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1447 hrs
A truly twisted mind to equate those two issues LSTW.
F-Bum, nice excuse, so Dems had nothing to turn out for? What about this proposition? I guess they just don’t care about health care.
Way to ignore the people.
Keep it up.
Posted by Fred on August 04, 2010 at 1451 hrs
That’s an interesting take on the PATRIOT Act…discussing what you think the intent was. The same compliment will not paid to the healthcare bill here, obviously.
What other freedoms or liberties should we do away with in the name of “national security”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1458 hrs
The same compliment will not paid to the healthcare bill here, obviously.
Nor should it be. Not at its price point. Nor because of the controversy surrounding it. Not until the Administration figures out if it is a tax or an entitlement. Nor because its passage was clouded in miscellaneous and extraneous provisions meant to entice (bribe) support for it.
No. ObamaCare doesn’t deserve teh same deferrence that the Patriot Act received in the wake of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center that killed 3,000 people hailing from every corner of the planet and represented a threat previously miscontrued as disgruntled third-world peasants.
Can you tell me what ObamaCare’s intent was? Because to this day, because of the shifty way Obama speaks about it and Congressional leadership vow/ed to change it, I’m not sure anyone can discern its intent.
Hell, literally overnight it went from providing coverage from 40 million people to 25 million people (per the President’s own words) without anyone wondering why the change in the number of “Americans” covered by it.
Or maybe we should ask why Insurance companies were so demonized during the fight for ObamaCare but yet were given 25 million new customers. Figure out the law’s intent yet?
Or maybe we should ask why pharmaceutical companies were demonized, yet at no point did they lobby against the bill but instead were quite supportive of it (presumeably, they were about to get 25 million new customers). Figure out ObamaCare’s intent yet?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1514 hrs
And I suppose that’s where we differ. You’re okay with the government literally being in your home, but you’re not okay with tax money attempting to correct a broken healthcare system. I’m the opposite. Whether or not this particular plan is the solution is yet to be seen, but it’s a step in the right direction. Government wiretaps are not a step in the right direction.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1527 hrs
The PATRIOT Act (disagree or agree with it) was ostensibly meant to strengthen and modernize US law to fight a previously misunderstood threat and to fight terrorism.
Actually I was referring to Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program, which was outside of the patriot act if I am not mistaken.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01nsa.html
A truly twisted mind to equate those two issues LSTW.
Hey fred, heard of FACTS. Try to use them when you are making a point. I did, you simply used petty insults. Go back to “fact free” rdw.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1544 hrs
What’s with all the straw men being built around here today?
You’re okay with the government literally being in your home, but you’re not okay with tax money attempting to correct a broken healthcare system.
The government is literally in my home regardless of the PATRIOT Act, and a comparison of ObamaCare (for reasons outlined above) to the PATRIOT Act are apples to oranges.
But yes, generally, I am against federal tax dollars going to fix a broken healthcare system. I’m less against state tax dollars going to fix a state’s broken healthcare system (if, indeed, the system is fixed).
Moreover, you’re starting from the premise that tax dollars MUST be used to fix a healthcare system that may or may not be broke? What’s broke? What’s the fix? Does it require money? Could it be adjusted via the tax code or via regulatory reform?
So, put down the match. I don’t want to burn anymore straw men today.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1602 hrs
LSTW/Anon -
I’ll cede that The Patriot Act is separate of the so-called warrantless wiretaps. It doesn’t change the nature of the debate, though. One is ostensibly to fight terrorism and does not involve states’ rights to a significant degree, while the other is arguably an encroachment on states rights.
Now… if the debate is about individual rights, then we get a little bit closer to similarities.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1609 hrs
@cynical: I actually didn’t know that about the timing. Thanks for filling me in. Believe it or not, some of do make an effort to not misstate or misrepresent things here, so I appreciate you clarifying that for me.
My point still stands about the margins involved.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 04, 2010 at 1624 hrs
@cynical: I actually didn’t know that about the timing. Thanks for filling me in. Believe it or not, some of do make an effort to not misstate or misrepresent things here, so I appreciate you clarifying that for me.
Thanks. I know you generally try to be measured in your comments, even though you and I sometimes disagree.
I take back the snarky-ness (is that a word?) from my comment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1637 hrs
Publius -
Not so much a strawman, as sticking with the topic of conversation. I didn’t initially compare them, but I like to keep the discussion flowing.
You did, however, clarify my belief about your ideas. I understand them. I don’t particularly agree with them…and we want different things from our government…but I have definitely determined I’ll never have my way. I suppose I’m just fortunate enough to be in a good situation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1911 hrs
@publius, I think if you look at the two in a larger sense, they do compare. People don’t want the feds to tell them to buy insurance. They want the right to choice, i.e. keep government out of their lives.
People don’t want the feds to listen to their conversations. They want the right to privacy.
I think if compared in this larger sense, there is a comparison. Imposing on rights or freedoms sense.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 0852 hrs
The article is very good,very useful, and i learned a lot from that, thank you very much, hope you can continue write this kind of article .
Posted by mensjeans on August 23, 2010 at 0632 hrs
The government subsidies the premiums for all private health insurance cover, including hospital and ancillary (extras), by 30%, 35% or 40%, depending on age. The Rudd Government announced in May 2009 that as of July 2010, the Rebate would become means-tested, and offered on a sliding scale.
Posted by life insurance quotes on September 02, 2010 at 0244 hrs
The article is very good,very useful, and i learned a lot from that, thank you very much, hope you can continue write this kind of article and thank you very much for sharing!
Posted by hairstraightener on September 02, 2010 at 0533 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134054
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 01:25 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 99
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 01:54 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).