Prop C Passes easily

(originally posted at St Louis Examiner)

Proposition C passes by an overwhelming support. 73% – 27% Will the people in Washington, DC finally get the message. We do not want the nanny state and the Government dictating how we live our daily lives.

via Ballotpedia:

The Missouri Health Care Freedom, Proposition C is on the August 3, 2010 statewide ballot in Missouri as an legislatively-referred state statute. The proposed measure aims to block the federal government from requiring people to buy health insurance and bans punishment for those without health insurance.[1][2][3]

Backers of such measures are opposed to President Barack Obama’s new health care plans. The measure does not advocate a particular plan but measure advocates say the measure will “protect the individual’s right to make health care decisions.” Opponents of the measures and some constitutional scholars say the proposals are mostly symbolic, intended to send a message of political protest, and have little chance of succeeding in court over the long run.[4]

On May 4, 2010 the Missouri State Senate voted 26-8 in favor of referring the proposed measure to the ballot.[5] On May 11 the House gave final approval to refer the measure to the ballot following a 108-47 vote.[6][7][8]

Although similar measures are scheduled to appear on other 2010 statewide ballots, Missouri’s Proposition C marks the first time voters will have a say on blocking the federal government’s 2010 health care reform.[9]

A “yes” vote is a vote to amend current Missouri law 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.” A “no” vote is a vote to reject the proposed referendum.

Reports out of Missouri are predicting a low turnout of voters on August 3, as there have been no television advertisements or debates. The Missouri Secretary of State is expecting a voter turnout of 24 percent.[10]

The Federal Governement has gotten too intrusive of every day life, and needs to be scaled back and go back to the original intent of the Constitution.   A limited government will help the economy grow and will give us more freedom and liberty to live our lives the way we want to.

The Government should limit the scope of the intrusion into states and everyday life.  With that said, the goverenmrnt does need to have some regulation on people and business, but not to the extent it is now.   Now it is too much of a nanny and controls our everyday lives more than the original intent of the Constitution.