Missouri Prop C

[bob9039]

By rejecting ObamaCare with 71% of the vote yesterday, Missouri sent a clear message to the Obama administration that government-run health care is a gross overreach of the federal government that needs to be repealed and replaced. The people of Missouri have spoken no matter what spin the media puts on it. Enough is enough. We rejected the belief by the current administration and leaders in Congress that they know best -- that distant bureaucrats and lawmakers inside the Beltway have a better grasp of what ails people in places like St. Louis than we do.


Update: After 100% of the precincts reported, 76.10% of voters rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance. It will be interesting to see the % by party.

[SmokinFool]

Just proves that the government has its own agenda, which it will pursue with great fervor, regardless of what the people want.

[acaciavet]

I in tend to pay the Penalty.Srew Obama care and any body who voted for the clown.

[DerikC]

Well, I think we obviously disagree. Because of that I'm going to try not to start an 8 page thread of useless bickering, but I'll ask a question or two.

1) Even if there was no government option, why shouldn't people be required to purchase health insurance? We're forced to buy car insurance, and I think it makes more sense to have health insurance.

2) Uninsured people end up getting healthcare via your tax dollars anyway, so I don't understand why you wouldn't want the free loaders to provide for themselves.

[Hermit]

By rejecting ObamaCare with 71% of the vote yesterday, Missouri sent a clear message to the Obama administration that government-run health care is a gross overreach of the federal government that needs to be repealed and replaced. The people of Missouri have spoken no matter what spin the media puts on it. Enough is enough. We rejected the belief by the current administration and leaders in Congress that they know best -- that distant bureaucrats and lawmakers inside the Beltway have a better grasp of what ails people in places like St. Louis than we do.


Update: After 100% of the precincts reported, 76.10% of voters rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance. It will be interesting to see the % by party.

Yeah, a bunch of dumb hicks from Missouri.
They're just too stupid to know that the Gubmint
knows better then they what's good for them.
It hardly matters that the federal mandate is unconstitutional.

[ewlewis]

Derik

1. To this point I will say that no one is forced to purchase car insurance. You only have to purchase this insurance if you own a car. There is the option to not have a car involved in the process. However, to mandate the purchase of health insurance is to mandate that all living beings purchase the product. There is no other option other than death. An option I care not to choose. Not to mention that your logic draws along a similar line of if there is one injustice in existence then what does it matter to add just one more. That slope is very slippery.

2. This mandate to purchase health insurance will not relieve us of the freeloaders. The freeloaders will still get their taxpayer insurance. Instead it will make it so that people who would normally choose to not be insured must be fully insured. We, as Americans, have the right to carry insurance, which is a business product not a right, or to not carry insurance. If I choose to pay the entire bill myself that is my right.

Just a few of my thoughts on the matter.

[SmokinFool]

Derick, I think that your first point was well covered by ewlewis. As to the second point, well here I have no doubt we will disagree, but here goes.

The people who will lose under mandatory insurance are the young healthy college students or wage-earners who would have otherwise chosen to not have insurance coverge, but rather to pay for doctor visits and such on an as needed basis. The reason is that when you are young you have very few (if any) reasons to see a doctor, so you would be paying insurance premiums for absolutely no reason, other than to subsidize other people in the system. You see where I'm coming from?

Even for those of us who do use our insurance, part of our premiums are already going toward subsidizing others. So - why should people who will not be using the system be forced to pay into it?

I have no problem with giving to the needy. I do it all the time. But - I DO have a problem with being told I HAVE TO GIVE! It should be MY choice, not my government's choice.

[bob9039]

Ok, I'll stir the pot...

One question. How many members consider themselves Progressives? They are a powerful minority in congress and are trying to implement a plan I hope the American people can reject. Can anyone tell me why they would want to give the Gov't more control over their their lives? Please explain. I respect all points of view and would like to hear a rational argument.

(I'm not at all claiming there isn't a need for some common sense Gov't regulation. Of course there is.)

Bob

[Hermit]

(I'm not at all claiming there isn't a need for some common sense Gov't regulation. Of course there is.)

Bob

Yeah, key word there: "common sense."
Not what's in the three thousand page monstrosity they passed (without reading).

[DerikC]

Saying that we can "choose" not to have a car and therefor not have to buy car insurance is a little convenient I think. Almost everyone needs a car to either get wages for a living, or an education, or just groceries. In the same way choosing death is ridiculous to avoid paying for health insurance, so to is choosing to walk everywhere to avoid car insurance. Especially in cold central PA with no real public transit system!

And speaking as one of those college students who you think would rather be uninsured and pay on an individual basis for as needed care...I can honestly say I've never met someone like that. I've had many conversations with a lot of folks from my school, and even the ones who disagree bitterly with me and would call me a quack don't advocate being uninsured. They're perfectly fine letting their parents foot the bill until they can make enough money to buy it themselves. Plus, I need health insurance. I paid a thousand dollars out of pocket last year to buy it from my university. I can't afford the outrageous bills from doctors/dentists (who I still haven't seen)/and chiropractors. My insurance just ran out on the first of the month, and I currently have bronchitis, a stomach ulcer, wisdom teeth that should have been pulled years ago making it painful to move my tongue, and back problems that render me bed ridden until I have to drag myself into a uniform and walk the mile to work a 9-hour shift so I can pay my bills. I am not a freeloader. I work my ass off so I can put a roof over my own head and my soon to be wife. And I've got to tell you, I'm struggling right now. I'm in terrible shape health wise, when I sneeze/hiccup/move the wrong way my ulcer sends me a gift of pain that doubles me over. All I want is health insurance so I can see a doctor and get the meds I need, and a dentist so I can eat food without cringing, and a chiropractor so I can get to work without chewing on my lip because of pain.

pro·gres·sive (pr-grsv)
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods

Well you know what? That doesn't sound half bad to me. Sign me up as one of those evil progressives heh...

[ewlewis]

I still stand by the ideology that a vehicle is a choice, because it is. Over a hundred years ago there were not as many vehicles and people lived just fine. Now some would say that now due to the vehicle we travel further for the same task, which is true, however, you choose where you live. If you choose to not drive, then you would be wise to choose an urban environment to live and work. Just because something lacks convienence does not make it a necessity.

Here is another argument against this whole issue, and beign a smoking board it is even more appropriate.

As smokers would it be fair for us to smoke all we desire and when a medical ailment results we expect the non smoker, health fanatic to pick up the bill. I think not, just like I am not paying for the health fanatics vitamin supplements. Bottom line I am responsible for my body and I will never ask someone else to live for the betterment of my life.

[petertschantz]

pro·gres·sive (pr-grsv)
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods

I think the problem is the definition of 'better' reference here.

[bob9039]

Derek, if I get in a car accident, and it's my fault, my car insurance pays to repair/replace the other persons car. That's what I thought mandated car insurance was for. If I don't buy car insurance, I can potentially damage the property of others and cause them economic harm. If I were the only driver in the nation, I don't think anyone would care if I wrecked my car.


Bob

[Grammaton]

Just a few of my thoughts...
If your auto policy paid for gas, oil, and tires how much would it cost to drive?

I do not own a car, and insurance is one (only one) of the reasons.
I should not be required to purchase medical insurance simply because I am alive.
I have gone without insurance for many years now, but when I had insurance, my part of the premiums were almost $1000 per MONTH.

The "Health Care Reform" bill makes cash payments to providers illegal. It takes money from the public, gives some to the insurance companies and gives the rest to people to give to insurance companies.

People need to stop calling insurance "health care", because they are different animals altogether.

[DerikC]

I still stand by the ideology that a vehicle is a choice, because it is. Over a hundred years ago there were not as many vehicles and people lived just fine. Now some would say that now due to the vehicle we travel further for the same task, which is true, however, you choose where you live. If you choose to not drive, then you would be wise to choose an urban environment to live and work. Just because something lacks convienence does not make it a necessity.

Here is another argument against this whole issue, and beign a smoking board it is even more appropriate.

As smokers would it be fair for us to smoke all we desire and when a medical ailment results we expect the non smoker, health fanatic to pick up the bill. I think not, just like I am not paying for the health fanatics vitamin supplements. Bottom line I am responsible for my body and I will never ask someone else to live for the betterment of my life.

I know of no urban areas remotely close to here where I can go to school and work by walking. Unless you're talking about insane places like LA or NY, but then again, I don't exactly have $800 for rent every month. It's not viable to go without a car, back in the day without them, how many people were going to school? how many people were employed? and how many people were able to simply work off their land? It's a different ball game now, not comparable.

pro·gres·sive (pr-grsv)
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods

I think the problem is the definition of 'better' reference here.

Then perhaps progressive is the wrong word, since it means something positive ha. Foiled by reality again Glenn Beck...

[SmokinFool]

Whether you can or cannot get along without a car really is irrelavent to the discussion. The point is that with car insurance you are paying to insure yourself as the user of the car. With Health insurance, if someone does not use the product or service, i.e. does not go to doctors, etc. (yes, I know people who are completely healthy and do not see any doctors at all), then they should not be commanded to contribute to the system. Like I said before, I have no problem with giving to the needy (I have been "the needy" on occasion before), but I DO have a problem with BEING TOLD I MUST GIVE. It's as simple as that. I should have the legal ability to pick and choose to whom and to what and to where my hard earned money goes. It's not up to the government to make those decisions for me.

[DerikC]

But shouldn't America, of all countries, be the one that doesn't let people go without health insurance simply because they can't afford it? What is someone supposed to do when they simply do not have the money to pay for it? Do you see no flaw in our system? People say we have the best health care system in the world and yet the WHO ranks us in the 30s I believe. Something is wrong. Health isn't accessible to us in America it seems.

[acaciavet]

Derick
I did not wear the uniform of my country to have it tell me I must buy anything.They can kiss my Milita ass.

[ewlewis]

The question here is America has confused convenience and necessity. We speak of car insurance, when the car itself is convenience, a convenience that has grown to where people think it is a necessity. I understand you go to school in an area with poor public transit. Well, you chose to go there and if you did not want to purchase car insurance you should have chose to go elsewhere. IN my community, NE Ohio, we have some of the lowest cost of living in the country and you can use our bus and cab system to get to school and work and recreation. Perhaps a person who desires not to buy car insurance should look at a community like mine. However, with mandated health insurance you will buy it no matter where you live, there is no way to rid yourself of it. Bottom line it is a tax increase on all, not just the upper class.

I am pretty sure that there are few people who want to see the poor suffer with out accessible health care, however, the less fortunate can receive the care they need. As a college student I frequented the free clinic when needed. Not to mention there is currently the medicaid option that millions of Americans use daily. The problem is not accessibility to the less fortunate, but the control over these services.

Is there a a need for Health care reform? Certainly. But government ran anything is almost always a bad idea.

[SmokinFool]

But shouldn't America, of all countries, be the one that doesn't let people go without health insurance simply because they can't afford it? What is someone supposed to do when they simply do not have the money to pay for it? Do you see no flaw in our system? People say we have the best health care system in the world and yet the WHO ranks us in the 30s I believe. Something is wrong. Health isn't accessible to us in America it seems.

Derick, the problem is not that ways to help do not exist. Any citizen of this great country of ours can walk into just about any hosbital emergency room, and receive treatment, regardless of whethere they have insurance or not. In areas where this is not available, there surely is a free clinic nearby.

You feel that ways are needed to help people with their medical expenses? Then let's set up charities to help those in need. I will surely be one of the first to contribute! Oh, wait - such charities already exist, AND I DO ALREADY CONTRIBUTE!

All this talk about insurance being a necessity and a right is just downright bunk. I went without insurance for many years, and yet I always found a way to get medical attention when I needed it. I was by no means a wealthy man, (and I'm still not!). HEALTHCARE is not the problem. Yes, we in the U.S. do have the best HEALTHCARE system in the world. Now, INSURANCE is a different matter. It is not the same as healthcare. They are two completely different beasts. It most certainly is possible to receive healthcare without insurace, without breaking your bank.

The government has done a great job of making insurance synonomous with healthcare, but it is only a "smoke and mirrors" trick. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME, and it is possible to get one without the other.