Missouri to Vote on Health Law

[Raggz]

Source: NY Times

For all its symbolic import, the first plebiscite on the Obama health care law, to be held Tuesday in Missouri, seems likely to be a low-turnout affair among an electorate dominated by Republican primary voters and conservative activists.

Missouri is the first of at least three states with ballot measures this year aimed at nullifying the federal health care law by invalidating its keystone provision, the requirement that most people obtain insurance or pay a tax penalty. A recent statewide poll in Missouri found that not even likely Democratic voters could muster a majority against the proposition.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/health/policy/01missouri.html?_r=1&hpw

---

This will be a difficult transition because the states will be picking up a lot of the health care reform bill.

California wants the reform, but may not be able to afford it. A great many teachers and cops will need to be laid off to raise the estimated 3 billion needed.

As the list of states rejecting health care reform grows, the primary cause may be the cost. Many states are already finacially stressed.

[Sherman A1]

1. Yup!

I have seen a few yard signs and have gotten a few mailings, but I am voting against "C" on the ballot.

[drm604]

2. Can a state nullify that requirement?

I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar but I'm not sure that a state can do that.

[Raggz]

3. 31 states intend to try

Many states just don't want the reform, but I doubt that very many will end up rejecting it for this reason.

This is a tough time to fund state funds for a massively expensive new program. This I expect will be the real problem.

In California where I live few will want to close schools or fire stations to pay for it but if the feds had funded it, yes it would be very much welcomed. California just doesn't have the 3 billion.

[drm604]

4. Maybe if California actually collected a fair amount of taxes

from the wealthy people and companies who can afford to pay them...

[Raggz]

6. California already taxes the wealthy

The wealthy already pay a large share of the taxes collected in California, this is why the state has budget problems. In good times they make a lot, in lean times they earn less. States that rely more upon taxing the middle class have a much more stable revenue base.

Right now the wealthy (who tend to own California businesses) are often breaking even - or even losing money - so they pay no income taxes. When the economy recovers only then will the wealthy again owe income taxes. We cannot tax income that does not exist.

If we start laying off even more teachers and closing more schools for health care reform the courts will stop this. Same with emptying prisons to pay for health care reform. 3 billion is a lot of cash for a state in a mess like California is in to find.

[raouldukelives]

8. It's my understanding that California

is the only state with offshore drilling that doesn't receive compensation from the oil companies for the privilege. If that is correct then that might go a ways to solving the budget mess along with cannabis legalization. That and not electing corporate puppets which forgive Enron of billions of dollars of theft.

[Knight Hawk]

17. Los Angelas

My son has lived and worked in Los Angeles for 20 years after graduating from USC.The city is going down hill fast .Many of the upper middle class have fled the city for Colorado,Oregon etc.The city is losing its tax paying base .The regressive sales tax there is 10%.

[Raggz]

5. NY TIMES

The nullification laws are expected to have little immediate practical impact, because the insurance requirement does not take effect until 2014. And by then, the federal courts are likely to have had much to say about whether the new health care law is constitutional, and thus beyond the reach of state efforts to invalidate it.

[Raggz]

20. California taxes the rich

which is why they no longer pay tax in California

[depakid]

21. Got any more propaganda for us?

:eyes:

Enjoy your time here....

[Recursion]

10. I'd laugh my ass off at the insurance companies if they succeed

Because the insurance company regulations would stay in effect (guaranteed coverage, no preexisting condition exceptions, etc), but the national mandate that was supposed to keep the insurance companies still profitable would be gone.

Sounds good to me.

[Posteritatis]

13. A state can't nullify anything. (nt)

[ooglymoogly]

7. Perhaps it is the government sanctioned and mandated, wealthcare

extortion they object to.

[66 dmhlt]

9. Only seen one sign on Prop C

I'll be voting NO on Prop C, but as I live in a very red neighborhood in the KCMO suburbs, it was a "vote yes" sign.

There are virtually no democratic primaries, but quite a few Teapublican ones, so I wouldn't be surprised if it got a huge majority. But as the NY Times points out, it will serve only as agitprop for the rabid right (like they're not crazy enough already).

[Sherman A1]

12. I have seen a few vote Yes on C signs and one

vote No sign in South Saint Louis. I will be voting No on the prop, but I expect a very low turnout so it's hard to say what will happen.

[pstokely]

18. I've seen in a few in Lees Summit, usually near Repuke candidate signs

must have gotten the signs from those candidates

[The Magistrate]

11. This Is A Legal Nullity, Sir: Well Beyond the Constitutional Authority Of A State Government

[Raggz]

14. 10 th amendment

Our Bill of rights says; '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.'

"In 1997, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional."

[The Magistrate]

16. Dream On, Sir

Not even worth engaging someone who simply passes on an undigested kernel off the first Wikipedia page encountered, and one which has been thorough;y defaced by 'tea-party' types....

[Winterblues]

19. Since when do Republicans care about the Constitution?

:shrug: People are so very short sighted. The expense of taking care of people after the fact eg. the Emergercy Room is far more than preventive care and catching ailments before they become unfixable...It is the same thing as if I refused to buy a new water pump for my delivery van because it costs too much. When the block cracks because of overheating my costs would be so very very much higher..However Americans are really not very bright..

[t0dd]

15. .