Here's the official wording for the "amendment" (a.k.a. Proposition C):
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?
It is estimated this proposal will have no immediate costs or savings to state or local governmental entities. However, because of the uncertain interaction of the proposal with implementation of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, future costs to state governmental entities are unknown.
As one news report put it: "It likely would have little effect because federal laws trump state laws." (little effect being the gentle way of saying "no effect")
Then again, that news report also mentions a lawsuit over the multiple subjects of the bill. Which makes sense because the first part of the law is effectively high speed fist shaking and the second part might not get overridden by federal law. How about we look at the 2nd part of this "amendment":
The committee treasurer (in both organization statements) is Patrick Tuohey.
On June 28, 2010 the committee received three $5,000.00 contributions:
MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION
CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR - TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION
SB 851 - Requires at least four days notice before voting by governing bodies of local governments on tax increases, eminent domain, and certain districts and projects
SCR 56 - Urges the Department of Natural Resources to consider the use of certain coal technology in its permitting of new coal-fired power plants
SJR 25 - Prohibits laws interfering with freedom of choice in health care
SB 721 - Modifies provisions relating to required travel club assets
SB 740 - Exempts prosecuting and circuit attorneys who have completed the firearms safety training course required to obtain a conceal carry endorsement from certain otherwise unlawful uses of a weapon
SB 821 - Requires drug testing for work-eligible Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) applicants and recipients based upon reasonable suspicion
SB 851 - Requires at least four days notice before voting by governing bodies of local governments on tax increases, eminent domain, and certain districts and projects
SCR 56 - Urges the Department of Natural Resources to consider the use of certain coal technology in its permitting of new coal-fired power plants
SJR 25 - Prohibits laws interfering with freedom of choice in health care
[emphasis added]
There's that word again. Irony impairment alert. Yes, it's all about that choice you used to have to pay for insurance and have an insurance company deny you coverage. That'll make perfect sense to a certain percentage of the population.
Republicans lost on health care and the Missouri GOP has responded with predictable temper tantrums in order to impress their Tea-Party addled constituents:
--Republican Governor wannabe, Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder, is planning to (maybe) file a pseudo official lawsuit against the Obama health care reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
--Rep. Todd Akin (R-2), man of action that he is, isn't waiting around like Kinder, but has just signed on to an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit against the PPACA that the Republican governor of the State of Virginia has filed.
--Roy Blunt (R-7) has announced his support for legislation to "repeal and replace" the "onerous" PPACA by bringing back the much ridiculed earler GOP "alternative," and repackaging it as a new Republican proposal. HR 5424, the Reform Americans Can Afford Act, which is cosponsored by Todd Akin and Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-9), would cut access to health care, drive up the deficit, reduce the life of the Medicare trust fund by 10 years, and reopen the "donut hole" for prescrption drugs. (As far as reform goes, a bit unclear on the concept perhaps?)
--Not to be outdone by the GOP federal congressional delegation, the state's GOP dominated lege wants Missourians to vote to opt out of health care reform this August.
Just the usual political games you may be thinking - but perhaps not, after all, such smart political moves as some GOPers thought a month or so ago. As Slate reporter, William Salatan observes:
Tales of death panels and warnings about losing your doctor can now be falsified. (That's what happened to the early scare stories about Social Security and Medicare.) And Republicans who denounce the program and promise to repeal it will no longer be bashing an abstraction. They will be proposing to take away existing, tangible benefits... .
... why assume that lockstep Republican opposition will discredit the health care program? Maybe the opposite will happen: Lockstep opposition will discredit Republicans.
Apparently the Democratic National Committee not only agrees with this assessment, but has enough confidence in it to go on the offensive. Which brings me to a great new DNC ad that will soon begin airing:
Update: Speaking of tangible benefits, my husband just forwarded a message from his employer detailing the changes in our health care coverage that have resulted from passage of the PPACA, and needless to say, it's all good. Now just let the Republican try to take it away.
Our Republican dominated state legislature couldn't manage to pass a meaningful ethics bill, but, as I am sure you know by now, they did join Arizona and Florida in placing an essentially empty measure on the ballot (the August Primary ballot in Missouri) that is meant to nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), known popularly as Obamacare*. Three states, Virginia, Idaho and Utah have already enacted similar legislation. So Missouri must be coasting on the leading edge of a cresting wave of anti-Obamacare sentiment, right?
Wrong! A recent report notes that of the 40 states identified by the health insurance industry front group, The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), as likely to take steps to oppose the federal legislation, 24 have rejected anti-PPACA legislation - including such deeply red states as Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. In seven states the legislation has been tabled or otherwise put out of its misery, and three states, Texas, Rhode Island, and Montana, never got around to doing anything at all. Meanwhile, plans for implementation are proceeding apace in all 50 states - including Missouri which seems to have a few adults left in government.
If Missourians vote for this amendment next August, they will have identified themselves with a very small and retrograde group of states - and while it is fun to go along with the crowd, it's not so much fun to crawl out on the bleeding edge practically alone and find out you're a laughing stock - but, of course, that's a risk folks run when they jump to "defend" the Constitution before they have taken the trouble to figure out just what the Constitution actually says.
So where does this leave our anti-Obamacare stalwart, Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder, and the weirdly anonymous donors (insurance industry or industry stooges?) who are financing his intended lawsuit against the PPACA? FiredUp!has suggested that Kinder may be getting cold feet or, at the very least, stalling for political advantage. It is, though, becoming more and more apparent that this paticular pander is akin to shooting at a moving target, and, in the end, he may not get all the bang that he expects for his donated bucks - or any bang at all perhaps?
* Obamacare ... yes, I know that the Teople (i.e., Tea Party People) use it as a pejorative, but I like the term and see nothing wrong with it. Obama's a relatively good guy as far as I'm concerned, and he should get credit for taking this issue on and getting something, imperfect as the PPACA may be, out of our ossified, corporate-owned congress. Calling the PPACA Obamacare can be seen postiviely as one way to recognize his role.
Sue Lowden is a republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Nevada, challenging Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D). She recently touted the virtues of bartering chickens for health care:
...Senate hopeful Sue Lowden's plan for Healthcare reform is to barter chickens for medical procedures. But you may be unsure how many chickens are required for your medical care. This handy calculator converts many common procedures into chickens so you won't look like an idiot at your next Doctor's Appointment...
It is clear that Peter Kinder thinks that there's lots of political hay to be made by getting in on the lawsuits against the Affordable Care Act - a belief that he shares with the AGs of several states, although it's unlikely that such a suit has even the proverbial snowball-in-Hell's chance of success. Sadly for Kinder, in his role as Lieutenant Governor he lacks the authority to file suit on Missouri's behalf. Happily for Missourians, responsible adults, to wit Governor Nixon and AG Chris Koster, have slapped Kinder down and refused to drag the state into this potentially very expensive morass. Indeed, Senator Claire McCaskill has gone so far as to describe some of his assertions as "embarrassingly wrong and irresponsible."
Although no state funds will be forthcoming, Kinder remains resolute - there are a few riled up Tea Partiers out there who need some TLC after all. Consequently, he has announced that he is collecting private donations in order to finance a suit out of his office. To this end, he has set up a Website, "Health Care in Action: Standing up against the infringement on state sovereignty and personal freedoms" - how's that for a particularly tone-deaf non-sequitur?
Perhaps this new variation on Kinder's crusade means that he was stung by criticisms like those of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which ridiculed the potential use of taxpayer dollars in an effort to deny Missourians the benefits of health care reform at a time when the state is engaged in budget cutting so dire that fiduciary bones are being scraped away. Or maybe he doesn't really care whether he raises sufficient funds or not - he's undoubtedly calculating that he'll get lots of fringer street cred out of this little piece of theater no matter what.
Laugh though we may at Kinder's grandstanding, we should not dismiss the harm he and others can do. The rightwing tactic of mounting legal challenges to the new law is potentially harmful to its successful implementation whether or not they have legal merit. As a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes:
Even though attempts to nullify provisions of federal health reform legislation have no legal effect, they should not be ignored. With enactment of the PPACA, substantial efforts are needed to meet tight deadlines for implementation. Legal challenges and campaigns to block the legislation will consume time and resources needed for implementation and may slow implementation until legal challenges are resolved. State provisions that purport to prohibit the individual mandate could be used as a shield by those who refuse to comply with the law. They also may weaken political support for health reform.
Conventional wisdom has it that Kinder is prepping for a run for Governor and that he sees this lawsuit business as a convenient tool to garner attention and establish his fringer bona fides. Still, he'll need more than Tea Partiers to become governor - and if he allows himself to be identified with the political thugs seeking to work over our hard-won health care reform, more people than he thinks may be upset.
Update: Here's Kinder bloviating on the Greta von Susteren show last night (FiredUp!points out that here once again he continues to lie just like a lying liar):
Rep. Todd Akin (R-2nd) reacted to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) with predictable bile. He also tried to dredge up some some stale GOP health care hash, twittering on the eve of its passage:
Did you know that the healthcare bill included a marriage penalty? A married couple making $50,000/yr will have to pay $1,650 more per year for health insurance than an unmarried couple making the same amount.
Although this claim is old news, dating from the first of the year, Akin's attempt to resurrect the meme indicates, sadly, that we may be hearing it repeated for awhile yet.
The marriage penalty Akin refers to is the mechanism the PPACA uses to structure progressive premiums for the ca. 17 million individuals who are now uninsured and who would be eligible for insurance subsidies through the exchanges. The Wall Street Journalpicked up the story from a memo circulated by the GOP, printing two articles that provided a cover of credibility as the story went viral among the wingnutagencia - just google "health care marriage penalty" and you will get a gazillion hits from all the usual suspects.
Reps get spit on, windows broken, mysterious powder--and Palin blames the "lame-stream media".
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) excoriated DNC Chair Tim Kaine and DCCC Chair Rep. Chris Van Hollen, for "dangerously fanning the flames" in using recent acts of violence and intimidation by anti-health-care reform opponents, "as a political weapon."
Together, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act will ensure that all Missourians have access to quality, affordable health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that these two bills are fully paid for, will bend the health care cost curve, and will reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the next ten years with further deficit reduction in the following decade. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act will reduce the cost of health care for the middle class, ensure health security to seniors, and provide tax credits to small businesses and individuals to further reduce the cost of health coverage...
Five Words to define HCR in the election season
Option A: Move forward or move backward
Option B: You Can't Trust The Republicans
Hey, can't hurt to have multiple options.
Ultimately the campaign over the HCR bill will have wild distortions, both for the contents of the bill and the moves that Republicans can do if they win in November.
The distortions, involving death panels, abortions, and tomatoes being poisonous, are not going to stop (zombie lies live forever) and only the most honed of the Republicans will be able to pick out a part of the bill, in the actual bill, that is the most objectionable. Which would be a fun game to play provided you have safety goggles on at the time.
As for the moves that are possible for the Republicans. They will not be able to do anything whatsoever to forcibly repeal the HCR law. They might remove portions but only if Obama agrees and an amendment to current law. If you hear a person voting Republican to repeal the law in 2011, they're a sucker of the highest magnitude.
But plain and simple, the Republicans want to move backwards on Health Care and the only unknown is how far back they want to go when they're tossing you out into the cold.
Two recent posts over at FiredUp! strike me as telling. One draws our attention to Kit Bond's assertion that the actions of our Democratic controlled congress to craft and pass health care insurance reform is comparable to suicide:
I think it may be more accurate to say they [i.e., Democrats] put red bandanas on their head, took a drink of sake, and went out on what I believe to be a Kamikaze mission.
The other posting describes Bond's and Roy Blunt's willingness to put their names to a hasty, Republican-sponsored measure designed to repeal the health care reform package lock-stock-and barrel. In view of today's USAToday/Gallup poll that shows that Americans favor the reform bill 49% to 40% against, they and their buddies may have just blundered onto the Kamikaze plane by mistake - because that margin can only get better as their erstwhile followers begin to notice that the legislation did not bring about the Armageddon these fearless leaders have been frantically predicting.
Todd Akin's official response to the health care reform victory is, as one might expect, shrill in the extreme. He has managed to jam almost every GOP screaming point into a few short paragraphs. Since the event that occasioned this vitriolic outburst is the passage of what is actually very moderate legislation, it might be instructive to deconstruct his florid imagery in order to figure out what Republican rage is really all about:
"Today Americans are reacquainted with the danger of an arrogant all powerful government, a deadly enemy within, a clear and present danger in Washington."
"Americans" in this context refers to Tea Partiers and corporations. "Arrogance" refers to the fact that the Democratic congress defied corporate initiated Tea Party tantrums and inept Republican legislative tactics in order to help the president fulfill one of the campaign promises that got him elected. "All powerful government" refers only to elected Democrats; when Republicans lie in order to force-march the country into deficit-busting wars, they are patriots. "A deadly enemy within" means that these same Democrats threaten a resurgent Republican hegemony, since they pose "a clear and present danger" to the GOP by revealing its sabre rattling to be nothing more than empty noise.
"In spite of nationwide opposition socialized medicine is being forced down our throats. That medicine is toxic to freedom. But freedom dies hard in America."
Akin considers "nationwide opposition" to be the 43% of the respondents to a recent CNN poll that disapprove of the health care reform because it is "too liberal" - although, if truth be told, many of those probably only disapprove because they have bought into the Republican misinformation campaign, and will no doubt be pleasantly surprised to find that the passage of Health Care reform has not, in fact, killed Blaine Luetkemeyer's father. Akin clearly does not consider worthy of consideration the other 52% who approve of the legislation, or who think it is not liberal enough.
President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and senior staff, react in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, as the House passes the health care reform bill, March 21, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
President Obama's remarks last night from the East Room after passage of the historic bill:
Today, after yesterday's disgusting incidents initiated by teabaggers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D), holding the 1965 Medicare gavel, and John Lewis (D) marched arm in arm past chanting teabaggers:
Apparently, for Congressman Ike Skelton (D), it is.
I just called his Washington office and the nice person on the other end of the phone, in response to my question, "Now that Congressman Stupak is supporting the health care reform bill, will Congressman Skelton vote for it?," responded, "No..."
...The turning point for Margolies-Mezvinsky came when she made a last-minute switch to support the 1993 Clinton budget after months of publicly voicing her opposition to the bill because it did not contain enough spending cuts. During her campaign, she had promised not to raise taxes, and the budget proposed a hike in federal taxes, including a gasoline tax. On the day of the vote, she appeared on television and told her constituents that she was against the budget. Minutes before the vote, however, on August 5, 1993, President Clinton called to ask Margolies-Mezvinsky to support the measure. She told him that only if it was the deciding vote-in this case, the 218th yea-would she support the measure. "I wasn't going to do it at 217. I wasn't going to do it at 219. Only at 218, or I was voting against it," she recalled. She also extracted a promise from Clinton that if she did have to vote for the budget package, that he would attend a conference in her district dedicated to reducing the budget deficit. He agreed (and later fulfilled the pledge). Nevertheless, Margolies-Mezvinsky told Clinton "I think I'm falling on a political sword on this one." When she finally walked onto the House Floor to cast the decisive vote, passing the measure 218 to 216, Democrats cheered while Republicans jeered, "Goodbye, Marjorie!" She later recalled that "I knew at the time that changing my vote at the 11th hour may have been tantamount to political suicide.... [but] the vote would resolve itself into one simple question: Was my political future more important than the agenda the President had laid out for America?"...
[emphasis added]
A freshman legislator had to be the deciding vote while long time (and safer) incumbents couldn't exhibit any political courage.
You know, we elect people to office to make the right decisions, not to be frightened by half truths, opposition distortions, the propaganda arm of the rnc, or crazy people. It's not supposed to be too much to ask to do the right thing. But, apparently, it is in Missouri.
I expressed my extreme disappointment to that nice person on the other end of the phone.
We received the following statement from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver's (D-MO) office:
For many of the members of the CBC, like John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver who worked in the civil rights movement, and for Mr. Frank who has struggled in the cause of equality, this is not the first time they have been spit on during turbulent times.
This afternoon, the Congressman was walking into the Capitol to vote, when one protester spat on him. The Congressman would like to thank the US Capitol Police officer who quickly escorted the others Members and him into the Capitol, and defused the tense situation with professionalism and care. After all the Members were safe, a full report was taken and the matter was handled by the US Capitol Police. The man who spat on the Congressman was arrested, but the Congressman has chosen not to press charges. He has left the matter with the Capitol Police.
This is not the first time the Congressman has been called the "n" word and certainly not the worst assault he has endured in his years fighting for equal rights for all Americans. That being said, he is disappointed that in the 21st century our national discourse has devolved to the point of name calling and spitting. He looks forward to taking a historic vote on health care reform legislation tomorrow, for the residents of the Fifth District of Missouri and for all Americans. He believes deeply that tomorrow's vote is, in fact, a vote for equality and to secure health care as a right for all. Our nation has a history of struggling each time we expand rights. Today's protests are no different, but the Congressman believes this is worth fighting for.
The health care reform express seems to be underway at last - and Republicans are throwing frothing-at-the-mouth tantrums that seem to include the type of impotent threat that characterize bad losers everywhere. Consider Tom Coburn's promise:
If you voted no and you vote yes and you lose your election and you think any nomination to a federal position isn't going to be held in the Senate, I've got news for you, it's going to be held
Not really much of a threat, though, since, as Faiz Shakir of ThinkProgress observes, Coburn is describing a unlikely situation that could only ever affect a small number of people.
"We didn't stop it, but now we have their names. Today, 222 Democrats are on record for supporting the unconstitutional "Slaughter Solution," which will allow them to pass the Senate health care bill without actually voting on it.
Apart from the hypocritical mischaracterization of the the "deem and pass" maneuver to which he is referring (since is in his fourteenth House term, he has to have supported the "deeming" process that Republicans used 36 times in 2005 and 2006) - I guess he means that his big, bad Republcan gang will make Democrats pay for doing what they are paid to do - watch out for the welfare of the people.
Well, Dan Burton, I've got news for you - we can all play at that game. Looking at the roll call, it seems that the members of the Missouri delegation that voted to move things along are Lacy Clay (D-1st); Russ Carnahan (D-3rd) Emanual Cleaver (D-5th). It is worth noting that Ike Skelton (D-4th), although he has indicated that he will not vote for the final bill, joined his fellow Democrats today to allow the process to go ahead - he ought to get some credit for that at least.
It would be great if these reliable Democrats (even, this time, Skelton) got some encouragement. You know what I mean - maybe send some thank you emails, letters or phone calls - or even a little donation, either now or when health care reform, God willing, is a done deal. On the other hand, I am sure nobody would take it amiss if anyone wanted to to send a few coals to the usual suspects in the Party of No: Todd Akin (R-2nd), Roy Blunt (R-7th), Jo Ann Emerson (R-8th), Sam Gravaes (R-6th), and last among the least, Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-9th).
You don't suppose that the Washington Post (via HuffPost)suspects there might be a connection between campaign contributions and the votes of House members on the health care bill, do you? Because WaPo has a chart showing the vote of every Rep. on the health care bill in November, his intent on the coming vote, the amount of campaign contributions he's received from the health care industry and the percentage of his constituents that are uninsured.
If WaPo is of that cynical turn of mind, I have to say that the chart is far from providing proof. For example, the industry gave $81,050 to Emanuel Cleaver. I mean, this is Cleaver we're talking about. He wouldn't vote against that health care bill under any less compulsion than a gun to his head. All that contribution shows is that the health care industry has way too much moolah it can afford to squander. And did they seriously think that $201,280 would sway Lacy Clay or that $217,462 might net them Russ Carnahan's vote? I guess people with excessive profits to throw around and a lot to lose will hedge every bet. There is this to be said about the largess handed out to Missouri Democrats: the least money went to the solidest yes vote and the most money--$250,754 to Ike Skelton--went to the single no vote. (And considering that 16.8 percent of Skelton's constituents lack insurance, that is one odious vote.)
Contributions on the R side are almost as nonsensical. The industry gave $367,501 to Todd Akin. What for? It's not like there was a snowball's chance he'd vote for health care reform. Less than 8 percent of his constituents lack health care, so they approve of him preaching the gospel of independence. And besides, he's genetically incapable of empathy much less of having enough sense to see that health care premiums will eventually sink this economy. A handshake and a smile would have kept him in the anti-reform camp. Sure, he'd have resented not getting paid off, but he'd have cut his right hand off at the wrist before he'd vote for a socialistic bill.
Predictably, Roy Blunt raked in the most, almost two and a half million--that, despite the fact that almost twenty percent of his constituents lack health care. Let them eat cake. Roy Blunt has one finely honed skill as a congressman: attracting campaign cash. As night follows day, big business money follows Blunt.
Do you suppose Jo Ann Emerson is jealous? She only got a half million, although she has the exact same percentage (19.8) of uninsured constituents as Blunt. If either one of them were going to entertain the notion of voting for reform, it would have been Emerson, not Blunt. So where's the justice? On the other hand, a half mil isn't peanuts.
Sam Graves got almost as much as Emerson ($414,399) and Luetkemeyer--because he's a lowly freshman?--only tallied $61,200. That's less than Cleaver got. What?
Anyway, like I said, I just don't see that these numbers prove any intent to corrupt our legislators. The honchos at Wellpoint could claim that the chart is evidence only that they're not all that bright in how they dispense their contributions. And, they would add, anyone who thinks congressmen got paid for their votes is either too cynical or is living a paranoid fantasy.
So where does this leave our anti-Obamacare stalwart, Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder, and the 
Rep. Todd Akin (R-2nd) 
Todd Akin's official 
Congressman Ike Skelton (D - MO)
