State Issue 3 “Ohio Healthcare Freedom Amendment”

• OneBuckeye

  

  thePITman;963581 wrote:I voted YES on Issues 2 & 3.

  bigdaddy2003;963599 wrote:I too voted YES on issues 2 and 3.

  +1
• wkfan

  Will be voting No on Issue 1, no on Issue 2 and Yes on Issue 3.
• BGFalcons82

  

  No on 1. Retire at 70 and enjoy your life. Give somebody else a chance to be judge.
  Yes on 2. It's time for public employees to do what they demand of taxpayers: To contribute to retirement savings and medical insurance just like the folks that fund the public employees.
  Yes on 3. Yes, I know it's symbolic, but I can never vote for ObamaKare.
• sleeper

  

  What is Issue 1?
• Mulva

  

  sleeper;963912 wrote:What is Issue 1?

  Allows a person to be appointed judge until age 75 instead of 70, or something along those lines.
  
  No way I would vote yes for that one.
• sleeper

  

  Mulva;963916 wrote:Allows a person to be appointed judge until age 75 instead of 70, or something along those lines.
  
  No way I would vote yes for that one.

  Yeah, that's a no for me.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Voted no, yes, yes.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Hmmm...all 8 of Ohio's major newspapers came out against Issue 3. WLW's Bill Cunningham came out against it. Of course, all the Obamabots were against it.
  
  Yet it's passing with a greater margin than the SB5 haters are winning Issue #2. Interesting.
  
  Doesn't really matter much on either issue. The folks that wrote the original SB5 are still in charge and will re-write it. The feds own all the states now, so issue 3 is merely a middle finger to Obama. In this contest, the men in black robes are on stage next.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  When the federal government's own Supreme Court orders Ohio to abide by the federal law we will see if we have the nuts to continue to defy them. It will determine if the states have any rights left.
• ts1227

  

  I still don't think throwing something in the Constitution that is completely useless is the greatest way to send a message like that, regardless of how you feel on the health care issue.
  
  Also, that was the position most of the newspapers took... they took it at that base level, whether you support/oppose the health care mandate wasn't relevant to why they said to vote no.
• Abe Vigoda

  

  Cleveland Buck;964313 wrote:When the federal government's own Supreme Court orders Ohio to abide by the federal law we will see if we have the nuts to continue to defy them. It will determine if the states have any rights left.

  So you suggesting Ohio succeed from the Union?
• LJ

  

  Abe Vigoda;964554 wrote:So you suggesting Ohio succeed from the Union?

  Secede?
• WebFire

  Abe Vigoda;964554 wrote:So you suggesting Ohio succeed from the Union?

  That's what you got from that?
• dwccrew

  

  Abe Vigoda;964554 wrote:So you suggesting Ohio succeed from the Union?

  LOL, probably a teacher.
• Skyhook79

  

  http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html
  
  HaHa, this guy...
• Ty Webb

  

  If the Supreme Court gives the thumbs up to the Health Care Law(which is likely at this point)....this will be rendered null and void
• WebFire

  I think that was discussed already.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Ty Webb;964733 wrote:If the Supreme Court gives the thumbs up to the Health Care Law(which is likely at this point)....this will be rendered null and void

  Hey Ty - I know you like to post polls from progessives showing Obama so far out in front that only Jesus Christ would stand a smidgen of a chance against him. The poll results from the people of Ohio yesterday stated that ObamaKare was defeated 66-34. There can be no better poll taken as the group size was registered voters.
  
  By the way, please check who's on the SCOTUS and then tell me it is likely. From all indications that the experts have written, it will come down to Justice Stevens' vote. That is, if Ruth Ginsburg doesn't live that long, then his vote won't be as important.
• I Wear Pants

  Voted No, Yes, No.
  
  The last one I voted no on mostly because it has zero power to have any effect.
• fish82

  

  Ty Webb;964733 wrote:If the Supreme Court gives the thumbs up to the Health Care Law(which is likely at this point)....this will be rendered null and void

  They aren't ruling on the law. They're ruling on the Individual Mandate...which is a sure bet to be torched by a 5-4 vote. Then the ball goes back to Bam to find another way to fund his shitty law.
• Abe Vigoda

  

  fish82;967071 wrote:They aren't ruling on the law. They're ruling on the Individual Mandate...which is a sure bet to be torched by a 5-4 vote. Then the ball goes back to Bam to find another way to fund his ****ty law.

  The majority of funding or sources of new revenue include a much-broadened Medicare tax on incomes over $200,000 and $250,000, for individual and joint filers respectively, an annual fee on insurance providers, and a 40% tax on "Cadillac" insurance policies. There are also taxes on pharmaceuticals, high-cost diagnostic equipment, and a federal sales tax on indoor tanning services. Offsets are from intended cost savings such as improved fairness in the Medicare Advantage program relative to traditional Medicare.
  
  The individual mandate just make sure that people who are currently freeloading off the system by not having insurance pay at least something. Sounds fair to me.
• sleeper

  

  Abe Vigoda;967776 wrote:The majority of funding or sources of new revenue include a much-broadened Medicare tax on incomes over $200,000 and $250,000, for individual and joint filers respectively, an annual fee on insurance providers, and a 40% tax on "Cadillac" insurance policies. There are also taxes on pharmaceuticals, high-cost diagnostic equipment, and a federal sales tax on indoor tanning services. Offsets are from intended cost savings such as improved fairness in the Medicare Advantage program relative to traditional Medicare.
  
  The individual mandate just make sure that people who are currently freeloading off the system by not having insurance pay at least something. Sounds fair to me.

  So basically in short, tax the rich. Sounds awesome!
• Abe Vigoda

  

  sleeper;967926 wrote:So basically in short, tax the rich. Sounds awesome!

  Or we can all just not buy health insurance and the hospitals are still required by law to provide services and crash the whole healthcare system. What's your idea of fixing the system?
• sleeper

  

  Abe Vigoda;968114 wrote:Or we can all just not buy health insurance and the hospitals are still required by law to provide services and crash the whole healthcare system. What's your idea of fixing the system?

  Healthcare is the most complicated problem in the country, book it. I do not have a solution, but I don't want the government managing my healthcare, period.
  
  I'm sure others on here care enough to tell you their solution to the problem.
• Bigdogg

  sleeper;968128 wrote:Healthcare is the most complicated problem in the country, book it. I do not have a solution, but I don't want the government managing my healthcare, period.
  
  I'm sure others on here care enough to tell you their solution to the problem.

  If you can afford it then there is not a thing in the act that says you don't have the choice to keep what you have or buy even better coverage. Is it not true that if you receive Medicare, the government has been "managing your healthcare" for years already?