Interesting how the Left press reports the news, and the
Left TV networks.
Public rejection of a key provision of the Health Care Law
was overwhelming.
Here are the statistics, with a YES vote being rejection :
|
Yes |
667,680 |
71.1% |
![]() |
| |
No |
271,102 |
28.9% |
That is as close to unanimous as votes ever get in the USA.
The NY Times did not print the tally, the TV networks did
not mention the vote count.
And the "take" on the story was to soft soap the results,
other things matter more,
besides, the issue was "really" about state government.
Get the idea ?
==============================================================
NY Times
Missouri Voters Reject Health Law
Published: August 3, 2010
Missouri voters on Tuesday easily approved a measure aimed
at nullifying the new federal health care law, becoming the
first state in the nation where ordinary people made known
their dismay over the issue at the ballot box
The measure was intended to invalidate a crucial element of
President Obama’s health care
law — namely, that most people be required to get health
insurance or pay a tax penalty. Supporters of the measure
said it would send a firm signal to Washington about how
this state, often a bellwether in presidential elections,
felt about such a law.
“My constituents told me they felt like their voices had
been ignored and they wanted Washington to hear them,” Jane
Cunningham, a state senator and Republican who had pressed
for a vote, said Tuesday night. “It looks to me like they
just picked up a megaphone.”
The referendum, known as Proposition C, was seen as a first
look at efforts by conservatives to gather and rally their
forces over the issue. In the end, though, the referendum
seemed not to capture the general population’s attention.
Instead, Republican primary voters (who had the most
competitive races on Tuesday) appeared to play a crucial
role in the vote’s fate.
Practically speaking, it remains entirely uncertain what
effect the vote will have. The insurance requirement of the
federal health care law does not come into effect until
2014. By then, experts say, the courts are likely to weigh
in on the provision requiring people to buy insurance.
“While we’re disappointed that Missourians didn’t vote
against this, we think the courts will ultimately decide
it,” said David M. Dillon, a spokesman for the Missouri
Hospital Association.
For some, the outcome was not merely about health care, but
about the role of states in setting policy.
“This really wasn’t an effort to poke the president in the
eye,” said State Senator Jim Lembke, a Republican. “First
and foremost, this was about defining the role of state
government and the role of federal government. Whether it’s
here in Missouri with health care or in Arizona with illegal
immigration, the states are
going to get together on this now.”
-- 