The Maneater

80°F (27°C)
Wind: 8 mph E

MU, state groups react to Prop C passage

Tuesday's voters made up 17 percent of Missouri's population.

Published Aug. 4, 2010

Missouri voters became the first in the country to block a provision of the federal health care reform with a ballot initiative in the state’s primary election Tuesday.

Proposition C, which passed with 71 percent of the vote, denies the federal government the authority to penalize Missouri residents who do not buy health insurance under the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law in March. The federal penalty is not set to go in to effect until 2014.

While other states have passed laws or filed lawsuits against the requirement, Missouri is the first state to reject the law by a referendum voted on by the state’s general electorate. The margin of passage for Proposition C in Boone County was closer than it was statewide, with 60.3 percent voting in favor of the ballot measure.

The Missouri Hospital Association, which lobbies for hospitals across the state, spent money to show what the effect of such a “yes” vote would mean and was in opposition to the measure.

MHA spokesman Dave Dillon said the requirement for people to buy insurance in the health care reform legislation existed to keep costs down and prevent consumers from taking advantage of the system.

Dillon said the removal of the federal penalty would allow people to go without insurance, putting them in a difficult financial position if they are diagnosed with a disease that has an expensive, long-term treatment. MHA estimates Proposition C could cost hospitals as much as $50 million, resulting in higher costs for those who do buy insurance and fewer available resources.

“A lot of people aren’t willing to cover their own risk, and they’re willing to shift that risk to other people,” Dillon said.

MU College Democrats secretary Alanna Bauer said the passage of Proposition C is largely symbolic because it probably will not hold up in court against the federal law. She also said that with Tuesday’s low voter turnout—about 17 percent statewide— the vote wasn’t representative of where most Missourians stand on the issue of health care reform.

“It’s kind of a symbol of where a lot of Americans stand, but its only a primary election so only a fraction of Missouri voters turned out,” Bauer said.

She emphasized the entire turnout in the election, about 1 million, was less than the population of St. Louis and the surrounding suburbs.

Unofficial election results released by the state also showed Missouri citizens came out and voted in Republican contests in much stronger numbers than in Democratic ones, with 577,612 casting ballots in the race for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination, while only 315,787 voting in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary.

Chris O’Connor, organizer of the Mid MO 9/12 Project Tea Party group, said in a text message that despite the low turnout, the wide margin of passage sent a clear message of the attitudes of Missourians. His organization publicly campaigned for Proposition C, holding rallies and fundraisers in Columbia and with other Tea Party groups across the state.

“The citizens of Missouri just let the federal government know what we think of their big government aspirations in an overwhelming number,” O’Connor said.

MU College Republicans chairman Brett Dinkins said he wants the freedom to choose not to buy health insurance, and said most Missourians who voted in favor of Proposition C felt the same way.

“A majority of Missourians and a majority of Americans support health care reform, but not in this way,” he said. “They do not support mandating participation in a health care plan.”

The widespread support for Proposition C sets the stage for the November general election and the 2012 elections, Dinkins said, and is a bad omen for Robin Carnahan and other Democrats running for congress who voiced opposition to the ballot measure.

“If they were supporters of health care and they weren’t supporters of Proposition C, I don’t see them doing very well come November,” Dinkins said.

Comments (9)

6:34 p.m., Aug. 5, 2010

Caleb said:

You folks need to check your facts and correct yourself. Turnout for this election was 22.9 percent of registered voters, meaning it falls closely in line with all off year primaries before it. Low turnout yes, but not low considering the years before it. Quit spinning things...that's not what J-school teaches.

11:46 a.m., Aug. 6, 2010

Kirt said:

Alanna Bauer is full of crap. Missouri said no to Obamacare, get over it!

12:52 a.m., Aug. 11, 2010

Rob said:

Correction: 22.9% of Missouri said no to "Obamacare"

7:12 a.m., Aug. 16, 2010

Brandon Brose said:

The prevailing myth is that increasing voter turnout will somehow increase the vote share significantly for one side or another. That clearly is false. As Professor John Petrocik and many others have already demonstrated, through actual research, increased voter turnout just adds the vote share but does nothing to give big gains to either side of the aisle. So what if it was only 17%? By referring to that, you're assuming that if turnout increased substantially, somehow you'd get a lot MORE votes against Prop C? Give me a break. 17% of registered voters in a state like Missouri is still a significant amount. The law of large numbers and general rules of averages and percentile demographics say that, more likely than not, Prop C's result would not be much different had turnout been higher. Alanna did not prove or offer evidence that it was. She just used some bogus talking point about "how low turnout is", as if that somehow PROVES that anti-Prop C folks stayed home while Pro-Prop C ones came out in droves. That's nonsense. The people who turn out during primaries are elections are NOT some extremely diverse group that is overrepresented by one side or the other as opposed to the ones who vote often. They just don't vote; they still have views and beliefs and side with one party or stance more often than none. There is no coven of non-voting liberals just hiding and waiting to be "activated" by the Democrats to get all their wildest big-gov't fantasies to come true. The non-voting population is pretty much the same ideologically as voters. They're just more apathetic, poor, less educated, etc. on average.

7:22 a.m., Aug. 16, 2010

Brandon Brose said:

Only about 62%, if I recall, actually voted in the 2008 presidential electon. That's not a whole lot different from previous years or the average trend for the last 30-40 years. Yet all the Obamites wanted so hard to believe that if they just registered enough voters that they'd be able to get a landslide victory for Obama or some shit like that. Of course, Obama did win, but it was only 5 or 6%. Almost half voted for McCain. Nixon got a bigger victory over McGovern. Reagan got a bigger win over Carter and Mondale.

12:52 p.m., Aug. 22, 2010

Bill said:

Wow. Less than one out of ten Missouri adults voted for Prop C. Let's let them cover the cost of the litigation that will nullify the vote.

4:44 a.m., Sept. 4, 2010

Brandon said:

Frankly, who CARES if turnout was low?? Sure, it may mean that Prop C's voting results were (supposedly) unrepresentative of the overall, but so what. The people who actually CARED enough about the issue voted. I mean, come on. I'm supposed to care that the other 80+% of eligible voters' interests weren't "represented" if they didn't take the SIMPLE effort of going to a local polling place and casting a ballot? Get real. If the anti-Prop C crowd cared enough about keeping the mandate, they would've voted it down, if in fact most Missourians DO support the insurance mandate.

4:47 a.m., Sept. 4, 2010

Brandon said:

The vote may not have been "representative" of Missourians' overall views on healthcare reform, but a national insurance mandate has NEVER BEEN TRIED before. This is NEW! And besides, most people don't like being forced to buy something they may not need, esp. by the gov't. This is not the same thign as overall HC reform, which more Missourians may support in terms of gov't healthcare programs and whatnot. The mandate is a simple regulation, a rule. You can't compare the 2.

4:50 a.m., Sept. 4, 2010

Brandon said:

The people who actually voted "No" on Prop C are the types I'd really like to meet and perhaps knock some sense into them. What right do they have trying to tell ANYONE that we MUST buy something because it will, supposedly, "lower costs", or that people without insurance "free-ride the system"? Of course, the free-riding is only made possible because states don't build enough low-cost clinics and hospitals, and the federal gov't in the 1990s made a ridiculous law mandating that ANY hospital within the area that was closest (not sure EXACTLY how the law states it) to a person who needs the ER is required to treat them regardless of insurance or payment status. The ER free-riding was NOT possible before the 1990s federal law. Most people forget that and assume it's ALWAYS happened, like it's something natural to our HC system for people without ability to pay.

Post a comment