Missouri Voters Say "Not So Much" to ObamaCare
In previous articles, I think I've made it reasonably clear that I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the federal health care legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama back in March. At the end of the day, I'm still only one guy with one voice and one relatively inexpensive laptop (you know, because I'm cheap) in a sea of most Americans who unequivocally reject ObamaCare. Despite this, opposition to it has not really been "officially" declared...until this week.
Missouri voters went to the polls on Tuesday, and by a three to one margin, bluntly told Washington to take their federal government mandate to purchase health insurance and, for lack of a better term, shove it, although they didn't specify where. The ballot measure, otherwise known as Proposition C, seeks to declare the state absolved from ObamaCare's health insurance mandate. As state Sen. Jane Cunningham, who co-sponsored legislation to get Proposition C on Tuesday's ballot, said of the results, "The citizens of the Show-Me State don't want Washington involved in their health care decisions." She went on to state, "It's like a domino, and Missouri is the first one to fall. Missouri's vote will greatly influence the debate in the other states."
She might not be that far off. Missouri just happened to beat other states to the punch on official voter opposition to ObamaCare. This November, Arizona, Florida, and Oklahoma will have very similar measures on their ballots. Because of the overwhelming margin of victory for Proposition C, 71.1 percent to 28.9 percent to be exact, many in the Republican Party feel their case against the mandate has gained unbridled momentum that could potentially translate into even more states putting a like-minded proposition to a vote.
One big question about the Missouri vote still needs to be answered: Will the federal government sue the state to block the measure, much like what they did to Arizona over their immigration law? I can't say I necessarily have an answer. Besides, I suppose the Obama administration, specifically Attorney General Eric Holder, could best answer that. Let's be realistic, though. Why shouldn't they sue? It's not like they're against spitting all over the beliefs of a clear majority of Arizonans.
Continued on the next page
Follow Technorati