Missouri Opts Out of Obamacare

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Do voters even read what they are voting upon any more?

Or is the voting public truly so readily manipulated, in this case by Missouri insurance companies benefiting from the average voters lack of depth of knowledge regarding the issues, and easily-stimulated to desired action by knee-jerk fears?
.

yea the whole state or 2/3's of it are stupid and you know all. You may be shocked but many voters still think the private sector does a far better job than the government at virtually everything and even more shocking is many voters are perfectly happy with their current healthcare coverage and don't want to subsidize those who aren't.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

yea the whole state or 2/3's of it are stupid and you know all. You may be shocked but many voters still think the private sector does a far better job than the government at virtually everything and even more shocking is many voters are perfectly happy with their current healthcare coverage and don't want to subsidize those who aren't.

That's an interesting take, because if the above is one's politics and beliefs, the proposition that the MO voters voted upon doesn't really support or have anything to do with the above in the least.

[Nascar1966]

The majority of this country didn't want Obamacare. Not suprising Missouri wants out of it. Im sure many more will try to do what Missouri is doing.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

The majority of this country didn't want Obamacare. Not suprising Missouri wants out of it. Im sure many more will try to do what Missouri is doing.

The majority of this country wanted significant health care improvements in America. All America got was some relatively minor health care reforms - with the caveat that millions of additional uninsured Americans will have some form of health care in a couple years. It's a start.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

The majority of this country wanted significant health care improvements in America. All America got was some relatively minor health care reforms - with the caveat that millions of additional uninsured Americans will have some form of health care in a couple years. It's a start.

What Missouri did was a start as well. A 2/3rds majority start.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

What Missouri did was a start as well. A 2/3rds majority start.

Some interesting news about insurance companies in Missouri today:

Insurance companies profiting from fallen soldiers is alleged
By MIKE McGRAW
The Kansas City Star

The Missouri and Kansas insurance departments said Tuesday that they were checking for complaints over a practice in which life insurance companies were reportedly profiting from the deaths of U.S. soldiers.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/03...#ixzz0veZre5Bv

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

What Missouri did was a start as well. A 2/3rds majority start.

Voter turnout was less than 24%. Proposition C was defeated in urban areas Kansas City and St. Louis, but won elsewhere (rural areas) 938,782 votes cast, 71.1% in favor, 28.9% against.

Here's Proposition C in it's entirety:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

[TRULY AGREED TO AND FINALLY PASSED]

SENATE SUBSTITUTE FOR

SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR

HOUSE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR

HOUSE BILL NO. 1764

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

4419S.05T 2010



AN ACT

To repeal section 375.1175, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to insurance, with a referendum clause.


Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Section 375.1175, RSMo, is repealed and two new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 1.330 and 375.1175, to read as follows:

1.330. 1. No law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.

2. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required by law or rule to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required by law or rule to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

3. Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person's options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.

4. This section does not:

(1) Affect which health care services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide;

(2) Affect which health care services are permitted by law;

(3) Prohibit care provided under workers' compensation as provided under state law;

(4) Affect laws or regulations in effect as of January 1, 2010;

(5) Affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing a person or employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider or hospital for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

5. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean:

(1) "Compel", any penalties or fines;

(2) "Direct payment or pay directly", payment for lawful health care services without a public or private third party, not including an employer, paying for any portion of the service;

(3) "Health care system", any public or private entity whose function or purpose is the management of, processing of, enrollment of individuals for or payment for, in full or in part, health care services or health care data or health care information for its participants;

(4) "Lawful health care services", any health-related service or treatment to the extent that the service or treatment is permitted or not prohibited by law or regulation that may be provided by persons or businesses otherwise permitted to offer such services; and

(5) "Penalties or fines", any civil or criminal penalty or fine, tax, salary or wage withholding or surcharge or any named fee with a similar effect established by law or rule by a government established, created or controlled agency that is used to punish or discourage the exercise of rights protected under this section.

375.1175. 1. The director may petition the court for an order directing him to liquidate a domestic insurer or an alien insurer domiciled in this state on the basis:

(1) Of any ground for an order of rehabilitation as specified in section 375.1165, whether or not there has been a prior order directing the rehabilitation of the insurer;

(2) That the insurer is insolvent;

(3) That the insurer is in such condition that the further transaction of business would be hazardous, financially or otherwise, to its policyholders, its creditors or the public;

(4) That the insurer is found to be in such condition after examination that it could not meet the requirements for incorporation and authorization specified in the law under which it was incorporated or is doing business; or

(5) That the insurer has ceased to transact the business of insurance for a period of one year.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a domestic insurer organized as a stock insurance company may voluntarily dissolve and liquidate as a corporation under sections 351.462 to 351.482, provided that:

(1) The director, in his or her sole discretion, approves the articles of dissolution prior to filing such articles with the secretary of state. In determining whether to approve or disapprove the articles of dissolution, the director shall consider, among other factors, whether:

(a) The insurer's annual financial statements filed with the director show no written insurance premiums for five years; and

(b) The insurer has demonstrated that all policyholder claims have been satisfied or have been transferred to another insurer in a transaction approved by the director; and

(c) An examination of the insurer pursuant to sections 374.202 to 374.207 has been completed within the last five years; and

(2) The domestic insurer files with the secretary of state a copy of the director's approval, certified by the director, along with articles of dissolution as provided in section 351.462 or 351.468.

Section B. This act is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state for approval or rejection at an election which is hereby ordered and which shall be held and conducted on Tuesday next following the first Monday in August, 2010, pursuant to the laws and constitutional provisions of this state for the submission of referendum measures by the general assembly, and this act shall become effective when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon at such election and not otherwise.

Section C. Pursuant to chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the general assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of this act to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of this act shall be as follows:

"Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:

● Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?

● Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?".

[AeWingnut]

did anyone in congress read the healthcare bill? for that matter do they read any of them?

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

The majority of this country wanted significant health care improvements in America. All America got was some relatively minor health care reforms - with the caveat that millions of additional uninsured Americans will have some form of health care in a couple years. It's a start.

I agree with you about Americans wanting improvements to the health care system. Did they actually want this bill that was passed?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

I agree with you about Americans wanting improvements to the health care system. Did they actually want this bill that was passed?

I think alot wanted more - a public option, for example.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think alot wanted more - a public option, for example.

O'Dumbass could care less about what the American public wants. He feels his way is the best for America to go. Hopefully in November 2012 America will wake up and tell this bullshitter where to go.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

The majority of this country wanted significant health care improvements in America. All America got was a socialist takeover of the health care system starting in 2014, complete with the mortality rates of the U.K. and Soviet-style lines and waiting lists.

Fixed That For You.

By the way, why is that abbreviated "FTFY" and not "FT4U"?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

yea the whole state or 2/3's of it are stupid and you know all. You may be shocked but many voters still think the private sector does a far better job than the government at virtually everything and even more shocking is many voters are perfectly happy with their current healthcare coverage and don't want to subsidize those who aren't.

Setting the health care issue completely aside for a moment, I lived in the state for a number of years and yeah, I'd say at least 2/3 of them are pretty stupid.