Yes On Prop C: What You Won’t Read In the Kansas City Star
Thursday, July 29th, 2010Yes On Prop C: What You Won't Read In the Kansas City Star
July 28, 2010 10:40 PM
By Jane Cunningham
(The following is a rejected submission to the Kansas City Star)
I encourage your readers to vote yes on Proposition C, The Health Care Freedom Act, on August 3. It is a critical election since Missourians will be the first Americans in the nation to have a vote on Obamacare. Many around the country will be watching the election results from the Show-Me State.
In response to your July 23 editorial on Proposition C, my first reaction as the sponsor of the bill was, had you bothered to check with its sponsors you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of bold face inaccuracies.
The language of the measure simply states that the government may not “penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.” It does not require the state to opt out of any federal program or bar Missourians from participating in any plan of their choice including any federally designed and approved plan. It would only keep them from being penalized, including criminally, for exercising their choices regarding healthcare.
The Health Care Freedom Act passed the Missouri Legislature with an overwhelming, bipartisan, supermajority vote of the House and the Senate with 68% of elected Representatives and Senators supporting the measure. Legislators in 42 States, or 84% of the states in the union, introduced similar measures in a push back of historic proportions against the intrusive overreach of the federal government in the area of health care.
If the Health Care Freedom Act is ratified by a majority of the voters on August 3, it will become a statute that will authorize Missouri’s Attorney General to defend Missourians against the mandates and penalties of Obamacare. Unlike you, that is hardly what I would call “futile.”
Eventually, the Missouri law, joined with similar laws and constitutional amendments from other states, will work its way to the US Supreme Court for a decision that has never been made in the history of America – is the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution so broad that the federal government can force individuals and employers to purchase a product — any product — with their own money against their will. Many constitutional attorneys and scholars believe that it is not. If the Kansas City Star believes that is a “futile” question to have addressed, perhaps you need to review the historical account of the Boston Tea Party with the resulting revolution and sacrifice that was made to protect similar rights.
With regard to your prediction that premiums would be reduced under the federal law, we need look no further than Massachusetts where a similar program to the federal mandate law has been tried. The results: premiums rose 40% and uninsured visits to the emergency rooms remained the same or rose slightly.
You stated that Proposition C was “instigated by an advocacy group amply funded by health insurers and drug companies.” This is just flat untrue! Had you done your homework by checking the Missouri Ethics Commission financial reports where all donations are required to be disclosed, you would have seen that no donations to the campaign committee, Missourians for Health Care Freedom, came from insurance or drug companies. I will accept your public apology for this misrepresentation of our effort on behalf of hundreds of citizens who flooded the Capitol urging relief from the federal takeover. This is the people’s bill and the people’s campaign from the bottom up.
Contrary to your statement about the ballots, Proposition C cost nothing to add to an already available ballot. Had you bothered to check the publicly available fiscal note on the bill from the Capitol Fiscal Oversight Office, you would have seen that a nonpartisan review showed a fiscal note of zero. Fiscal notes are required of all legislation that is considered in the House or Senate.
How you conclude that this will increase legal costs I don’t know since the Attorney General’s office is responsible for defending Missouri Statutes. That budget item remains the same no matter how many or how few state cases the office tries.
And, by the way, there is precedent for state laws to trump federal law contrary to your assertion.
I hope you will check your facts first for future recommendations, but perhaps there was never an intention for facts to interfere with your viewpoint.
It really boils down to whether you want government to make your health care choices or you want to make them yourself. If you want to make them yourself, you should vote yes on Proposition C.
via Yes On Prop C: What You Won’t Read In the Kansas City Star.
