Speak Out: Prop C Vote - Be Careful WHAT You VOTE for...

Replies (8)

• Are you saying a private enterprise should not be able to close shop as it's bottom line might dictate?

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jul 14, 2010, at 9:32 AM

• Kind of what I asked on the previous forum thread, Wheels ...

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Jul 14, 2010, at 11:02 AM

• I am no legal mind, but the way I read this, insurance companies are not being given the ok to close up and take the money and run.

  In my opinion, the restrictions referred to give this bill more bark than bite, but I will support it.

  -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jul 14, 2010, at 12:00 PM

• I am voting yes.

  -- Posted by Missourian2 on Wed, Jul 14, 2010, at 1:07 PM

• No "REAL" American would want a govt. health care bill that punishes citizens for not taking their @!@@! bill. This is socialism, not what America stands for.

  -- Posted by smartchoice on Wed, Jul 14, 2010, at 2:20 PM

• mc9,

  This is a legitimate question that was asked at a town hall meeting regarding Prop C this weekend.

  It will be interesting to see what Judge Wilson decides. I can see the points on both sides of the argument.

  I am supporting Prop C nonetheless.

  Thanks for posting the link. Here is another link to an opinion piece regarding this subject that was written a couple of weeks ago...

  http://www.24thstate.com/2010/06/guest-post-political-lawsuit-filed-to-silence-t...

  -- Posted by Lumpy on Wed, Jul 14, 2010, at 2:55 PM

• I am only pointing out that we should be voting on one thing and one thing only not only on this but numerous other matters that have been put to vote. The Missouri state constitution requires that a bill contain a clear title with a single purpose. Prop C has two purposes! Politicians are always sliding in hidden agendas. I repeat "constitution requires...clear title with a single purpose". I clearly understand Prop C -- line item 1.

  BUT, if by voting yes or no on Prop C, we have to vote on line item 2 - whether an insurance company can voluntarily dissolve -- well, I guess there must be something out there for some reason that doesn't allow them to do so -- and that's not so clear here, is it? Clearly line item 1 is getting all the press.

  Do you recall in 2006 when MO voters overwhelmingly voted in an amendment to constitutionally prohibit officials convicted of a felony from receiving their state pension? Of course a state official, now a convicted felon, should not receive their pension if they have violated our trust. This sounded like a slam dunk, right? Everyone voted for it -- unless maybe you were an official.

  BUT, in so voting, voters also made it easier for legislators, other elected officials and judges to get a raise -- in essence it allowed salary increases with two thirds vote instead of majority and removed the language that made the recommendations "subject to appropriation". In essence, they were no longer the "bad guys" voting in their own raises whether there was money for it or not. Has everyone forgotten the fall-out when officials got a raise in January! Voters focusing on line item 1 failed to clearly notice line item 2. Again, I'm not saying they did or did not deserve a raise. I'm saying clear title with a single purpose voting. Had this been a separate vote, would it have passed so overwhelmingly?

  How about the minimum wage increase vote of 2006? On the surface that one sounded like the right thing to do? Who could survive on $5.15 an hour? I can't find it, but I'm pretty sure this one had a hidden agenda to it also. After it was voted in, everyone started bawling about whatever else it was they voted in by saying yes to increasing the minimum wage.

  So, if it's no big deal, take out Prop C Line item 2. Seems like everyone so far is more concerned with line item 1 anyway. Why vote in one thing and suffer the consequences of the 2nd because it was tacked on as an after thought that no one would be too concerned about. I'm concerned. They've done it once, they've done it twice. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

  -- Posted by mc9 on Wed, Jul 14, 2010, at 9:07 PM

• Thank you Vulcan2004 - you provided valuable insight with your link. I guess my question now would be "is there currently little or nothing in place to keep domestic insurance companies from dissolving?" Your link leads me to believe that Prop C is attempting to safeguard us from overnight abandonment by insurance companies.

  -- Posted by mc9 on Wed, Jul 14, 2010, at 9:53 PM