Speak Out: Yes On Prop C Yardsigns Available

Posted by Lumpy on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 9:05 PM:

I have some Yes On Prop C (Missouri Healthcare Freedom Act) yardsigns available if you are interested. Just reply here. Thanks!

Replies (13)

  • Do you have any links to sites where one could read up on Prop. C? I've had problems finding info on this measure that dosen't have a negative slant.

    -- Posted by mynameismud on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 9:40 PM
  • Save me one, Van?

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 10:48 PM
  • catfish,

    Here is a general information link...

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2511584/posts

    Another...

    http://www.24thstate.com/2010/05/the-missouri-healthcare-freedom-act.html

    Disclaimer - neither of the websites paint Prop C in a negative light.

    Here is a link to the organization's website that is spearheading the yes vote...

    http://www.mohealthfreedom.org/

    And finally a link to one of my favorite websites - The Tenth Amendment Center. Not so much about Prop C here, just a site that educates citizens on the Tenth Amendment.

    http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

    I just ordered a copy of the brilliant Tom Woods' latest book - Nullification.

    'mom,

    Can do. Are you going to be in the Cape area anytime this week? Prop C is on the August 3 ballot, so there isn't much time left to get the word out.

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 7:31 AM
  • Where can I pick up one of the signs?

    -- Posted by Pam Deneke on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 11:27 AM
  • Will be there the 20th, Van. But may come in one day this week for shopping and banking ... Anxious to get the sign out, and will ask some local friends/neighbors if they're willing to put one out. I'll let you know.

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 5:56 PM
  • Dang, where I live is too secluded for a sign! But I will be voting.

    -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 6:41 PM
  • One website provided says: 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?

    I'm ok with the first question, but what the heck does the second question mean? Why can't I just be voting on the first question - period! Those politicians always sneak in something. When you vote yes for one thing, you're also voting yes for something else that normally, you would not vote yes on...Guess I won't be voting unless the second question is explained to me somewhere.

    Remember when voters voted that any politician who is convicted of a felony would not get a pension? Another statement in that kit and kaboodle was that they didn't need to vote on their pay raises anymore! Everyone thought they were voting for no pensions to convicted politicians, when the hidden agenda was getting pay raises they didn't have to vote on!

    -- Posted by mc9 on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 7:47 PM
  • Thanks for the Info Vandeven, certainly something I will support.

    -- Posted by mynameismud on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 9:39 PM
  • Well thanks, mc9 ... "Remember when voters voted that any politician who is convicted of a felony would not get a pension? Another statement in that kit and kaboodle was that they didn't need to vote on their pay raises anymore!"

    I've known for years that they voted not to have to vote on their pay raises, but didn't realize it was one of those sly little 'add-ons.'

    It's been bandied about now and then for ages that any bill in congress can only contain one thing ... but the excuse for not ever passing it seems to be 'in the interest of time.'

    My opinion is it would be a GOOD thing for them not to 'have time' to keep creating new bills!

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 1:11 AM
  • In Today's online paper under state news:

    "One part of Missouri's ballot measure says the government cannot require people to have health insurance nor penalize them for using their own money to fully pay their health care bills. That would conflict with a central part of the federal health care overhaul that requires most people to have health insurance or face fines by 2014.

    The other part of the Missouri ballot measure allows insurance companies to voluntarily dissolve.

    Gentry said voters might like one part but not the other, yet would face a single "yes" or "no" vote covering both."

    Well, this is exactly my point - it's a win/lose proposition, so I guess I won't be voting on this unless they get it straigtened out!

    See full story in State news:

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MO_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_LAWSUIT_MOOL-?SITE=MOC...

    -- Posted by mc9 on Wed, Jul 14, 2010, at 7:38 AM
  • Not sure exactly what that means ... but don't private businesses have the right to ... well, go out of business? Or are insurance companies presently restricted from doing that ... if so, why?

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Jul 14, 2010, at 11:00 AM
  • How would a person go about getting one of those signs Mr. Vandeven?

    -- Posted by mynameismud on Sat, Jul 17, 2010, at 11:25 PM
  • catfish,

    I have two signs left. Are you local? e-mail me at vandeven2010@att.net, and we can make arrangements. Thanks.

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Jul 18, 2010, at 6:46 AM

Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration: