Some don’t like the mandate that they have health insurance

by YankeeJim | August 5, 2010 at 04:17 am

81 views | 0 Recommendations | 0 comments

The new healthcare law is based on the idea that everyone must participate and pay a share of healthcare expense. You cannot opt out. If you permit people to opt out, it changes the numbers and as important, those who elect not to participate may have a need for healthcare that they cannot afford. Is the consequence to let them do without or die because they elected not to participate?

What people in the USA object to is being told what to do without an option. That may be our behavior, but it is impractical when dealing with massive social needs such as healthcare.

So the article says people from Missouri don’t like the overhaul. That is a big leap to a conclusion.

Going to a Republican and conservative community for a referendum and extrapolating that the public doesn’t like the overhaul is not an accurate method or interpretation.

“Missouri vote cited as proof that public dislikes health-care overhaul
By Alec MacGillis

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 5, 2010

A day after Missouri voters rejected a key component of the nation's new health-care overhaul, Republicans seized on the result as conclusive evidence that Americans don't like the law.

Primary voters in Missouri were the first to vote directly on the law, in a ballot referendum that prohibits the federal government from requiring people to have health insurance. The measure passed 71 percent to 29 percent.

Supporters of the overhaul played down the vote, noting that it has no practical impact and that Tuesday's electorate was largely Republican. But they conceded that a lack of public support could make it hard to put the law into practice.

Lawmakers in several other states, such as Virginia, have already passed laws rejecting the "individual mandate," a central feature of the health-care overhaul. The state laws, including Missouri's, are largely symbolic because they are trumped by federal law.

More consequential are the legal challenges that have been brought by Republican state attorneys general, including a lawsuit by Virginia's Ken Cuccinelli II. A federal judge ruled Monday that Virginia's suit can go forward, rejecting arguments from the Obama administration that the state had no standing to sue.

Regardless, Republicans said Wednesday that the vote in Missouri marks a turning point in the health-care debate.

"It sends a big message to the country," said Rep. Roy Blunt, who won the Republican primary in Missouri's Senate race. "This is the first time voters have had a chance at the ballot box to register their feeling about this bill. [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid kept saying, 'We know people don't like this, but once we pass it they're really going to like it.' Well, as it turned out . . . they still don't like it."

But supporters of the national law argued that the electorate was far from representative. Turnout was far higher on the Republican side, where Blunt was facing a more competitive field than Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan was on the Democratic side.

About two-thirds of the voters participated in the Republican Senate primary, and turnout in Democratic strongholds such as St. Louis and Kansas City was among the lowest in the state. And Missouri in general is conservative on health-care policy -- its Medicaid eligibility policy is among the most stringent in the country.

The overhaul's backers also pointed to national polls that show an uptick in support for the new law. "We're trying not to read too much into it, because we know it's a very small percentage of registered voters and that very conservative primary races were being decided," said Amy Blouin, founder of the Missouri Budget Project, a liberal advocacy group.”