urbanSTL

Contradicting previous reports that the governor's office was to move forward with Medicaid expansion despite the action of the State legislature, Governor Parson has rescinded the Missouri's Department of Social Services's paper work on file with the Federal Government laying the groundwork for Missouri Medicaid expansion. 

Link: https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... -top-story

A few reasons this is terrible (other than the thousands of deaths it will cause):
(1) Starting July 1, Missouri tax-payers will be subsidizing Medicaid for the rest of the nation;
(2) Sick and unemployed people are incentivized to remain unemployed or out of the labor force; 
(3) Healthcare costs will continue to rise because Hospitals are writing off care for the uninsured;
(4) Sick Missourians with healthcare coverage will continue to subsidize poor Missourians without healthcare coverage;
(5) Centene is going to leave.

I don’t understand what the State Legislature’s problem is with Medicaid Expansion. If it comes down to it, and it most likely will, just put it up for a vote again. Maybe then the message will be clear.

And as far as Centene leaving, I think that’s a given whether or not Medicaid Expansion happens. They were given free money from Charlotte and North Carolina. A bribe in a way. Money talks

chriss752 wrote: ↑

May 13, 2021

I don’t understand what the State Legislature’s problem is with Medicaid Expansion. 

Two reasons. It's a federal program that helps poor people. The GOP hates the federal government and poor people. A double whammy.

The Act clearly reads that MoHealthNet coverage will be extended to people earning less than $18,000/yr. They have to extend coverage. It should take no time to get an injunction. Also, as this is a constitutional amendment, sovereign immunity will not protect Missouri from individual claimants injured as a result of the violation after July 1.

Well, I was being completely serious about the revote. State did it for the redistricting amendment, so there is a precedent there. 

I get the point you're all trying to make. I personally did not vote in favor of it but a majority of Missourians did (53%), so I can't argue with that. If they (Legislature) have to be told in court that they have to honor this, go ahead. 

And you make a good point. I'm scared that this is just a ploy to buy time for the GOP to get it back on the ballot and mount a stronger campaign. 

I don't understand why you would not vote for it though. Its not as if Missouri businesses and taxpayers are going to see their payroll taxes fall as a result of not participating. 

BellaVilla wrote:And you make a good point. I'm scared that this is just a ploy to buy time for the GOP to get it back on the ballot and mount a stronger campaign. 

I don't understand why you would not vote for it though. Its not as if Missouri businesses and taxpayers are going to see their payroll taxes fall as a result of not participating. 

You have to remember, and I think I put this on this forum somewhere, but I’m the one who wrote Kanye West in for President, wrote Matt Blunt in for Governor, Bev Randles in for Lieutenant Governor, and wrote my name in for State Treasurer, State Senate, and State Rep.

In other words, when I vote there’s things I take seriously and things that I don’t think seriously. In the case of Medicaid Expansion, I was told by family members (especially grandparents) that it shouldn’t be expanded and so I should vote against it, so I did. I also didn’t know much about Medicaid anyway, so my opinion was swayed heavily by family, who were all against it.

^ did you ask your grandparents/family to explain their reasoning? did it extend beyond "because the Democrats want it"? not trying to be insulting, but voting a certain way because your grandparents tell you to is maybe not the smartest approach. i will simply never understand throwing away your vote because your ideal candidate isn't on the ballot. talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good.

Ugh, Grandpa told me so...

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

May 13, 2021

^ did you ask your grandparents/family to explain their reasoning? did it extend beyond "because the Democrats want it"? not trying to be insulting, but voting a certain way because your grandparents tell you to is maybe not the smartest approach. i will simply never understand throwing away your vote because your ideal candidate isn't on the ballot. talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good.

They did not give reasons. My family is more left than right on the political spectrum. I fall into the right-wing side, but have more Libertarian leanings than most people. And I don't throw my vote away because a candidate I don't like is on the ballot. All politicians in office are to blame for our problems, so none deserve to be in office. I vote "no" on retaining all judges. So really, I vote for who I want. Now, if a member on this forum ran for office where I live, I'd vote for he or she because most people on here "get it". I'm one of the few who's out doing whatever for the hell of it. I'm 20, going on 21. That's all you need to know.

But when it comes down to ballot measures, they're so wordy that I'mm answer no if it sounds confusing. Medicaid expansion was one of those things where I didn't know what it was, I sought advice, went in unknowing what I would vote, the measure was wordy and confusing to me, so I voted no.

I'm glad we're saving all that money by not contributing to the Medicaid expansion's required 10% of procedure costs that the state is currently paying 40-60% of under the old rules. I am very good at math.

chriss752 wrote: ↑

May 13, 2021

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

May 13, 2021

^ did you ask your grandparents/family to explain their reasoning? did it extend beyond "because the Democrats want it"? not trying to be insulting, but voting a certain way because your grandparents tell you to is maybe not the smartest approach. i will simply never understand throwing away your vote because your ideal candidate isn't on the ballot. talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good.

They did not give reasons. My family is more left than right on the political spectrum. I fall into the right-wing side, but have more Libertarian leanings than most people. And I don't throw my vote away because a candidate I don't like is on the ballot. All politicians in office are to blame for our problems, so none deserve to be in office. I vote "no" on retaining all judges. So really, I vote for who I want. Now, if a member on this forum ran for office where I live, I'd vote for he or she because most people on here "get it". I'm one of the few who's out doing whatever for the hell of it. I'm 20, going on 21. That's all you need to know.

But when it comes down to ballot measures, they're so wordy that I'mm answer no if it sounds confusing. Medicaid expansion was one of those things where I didn't know what it was, I sought advice, went in unknowing what I would vote, the measure was wordy and confusing to me, so I voted no.

appreciate the response. agree that ballot measures can be confusing, sometimes intentionally so.

but c'mon. "all politicians in office are to blame for our problems" and "none deserve to be in office"? what a lazy, cynical, hyperbolic load of crap.

urban_dilettante wrote:

chriss752 wrote: ↑

May 13, 2021

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

May 13, 2021

^ did you ask your grandparents/family to explain their reasoning? did it extend beyond "because the Democrats want it"? not trying to be insulting, but voting a certain way because your grandparents tell you to is maybe not the smartest approach. i will simply never understand throwing away your vote because your ideal candidate isn't on the ballot. talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good.

They did not give reasons. My family is more left than right on the political spectrum. I fall into the right-wing side, but have more Libertarian leanings than most people. And I don't throw my vote away because a candidate I don't like is on the ballot. All politicians in office are to blame for our problems, so none deserve to be in office. I vote "no" on retaining all judges. So really, I vote for who I want. Now, if a member on this forum ran for office where I live, I'd vote for he or she because most people on here "get it". I'm one of the few who's out doing whatever for the hell of it. I'm 20, going on 21. That's all you need to know.

But when it comes down to ballot measures, they're so wordy that I'mm answer no if it sounds confusing. Medicaid expansion was one of those things where I didn't know what it was, I sought advice, went in unknowing what I would vote, the measure was wordy and confusing to me, so I voted no.

appreciate the response. agree that ballot measures can be confusing, sometimes intentionally so.

but c'mon. "all politicians in office are to blame for our problems" and "none deserve to be in office"? what a lazy, cynical, hyperbolic load of crap.

I can’t please everyone with what I say or do. I do me and you do you

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

May 14, 2021

chriss752 wrote: ↑

May 13, 2021

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

May 13, 2021

^ did you ask your grandparents/family to explain their reasoning? did it extend beyond "because the Democrats want it"? not trying to be insulting, but voting a certain way because your grandparents tell you to is maybe not the smartest approach. i will simply never understand throwing away your vote because your ideal candidate isn't on the ballot. talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good.

They did not give reasons. My family is more left than right on the political spectrum. I fall into the right-wing side, but have more Libertarian leanings than most people. And I don't throw my vote away because a candidate I don't like is on the ballot. All politicians in office are to blame for our problems, so none deserve to be in office. I vote "no" on retaining all judges. So really, I vote for who I want. Now, if a member on this forum ran for office where I live, I'd vote for he or she because most people on here "get it". I'm one of the few who's out doing whatever for the hell of it. I'm 20, going on 21. That's all you need to know.

But when it comes down to ballot measures, they're so wordy that I'mm answer no if it sounds confusing. Medicaid expansion was one of those things where I didn't know what it was, I sought advice, went in unknowing what I would vote, the measure was wordy and confusing to me, so I voted no.

appreciate the response. agree that ballot measures can be confusing, sometimes intentionally so.

but c'mon. "all politicians in office are to blame for our problems" and "none deserve to be in office"? what a lazy, cynical, hyperbolic load of crap.

We've had periods with Democratic trifectas at every level of government, but we still have poverty, hunger and homelessness. It may not be the fault of every single politician individually, but it's factually a bipartisan failure.

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

May 14, 2021

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

May 14, 2021

chriss752 wrote: ↑

May 13, 2021

They did not give reasons. My family is more left than right on the political spectrum. I fall into the right-wing side, but have more Libertarian leanings than most people. And I don't throw my vote away because a candidate I don't like is on the ballot. All politicians in office are to blame for our problems, so none deserve to be in office. I vote "no" on retaining all judges. So really, I vote for who I want. Now, if a member on this forum ran for office where I live, I'd vote for he or she because most people on here "get it". I'm one of the few who's out doing whatever for the hell of it. I'm 20, going on 21. That's all you need to know.

But when it comes down to ballot measures, they're so wordy that I'mm answer no if it sounds confusing. Medicaid expansion was one of those things where I didn't know what it was, I sought advice, went in unknowing what I would vote, the measure was wordy and confusing to me, so I voted no.

appreciate the response. agree that ballot measures can be confusing, sometimes intentionally so.

but c'mon. "all politicians in office are to blame for our problems" and "none deserve to be in office"? what a lazy, cynical, hyperbolic load of crap.

We've had periods with Democratic trifectas at every level of government, but we still have poverty, hunger and homelessness. It may not be the fault of every single politician individually, but it's factually a bipartisan failure.

"both parties have failed to some degree" is a very different statement than "every single politician is a crook, therefore i'm not voting for anyone."

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

May 14, 2021

"both parties have failed to some degree" is a very different statement than "every single politician is a crook, therefore i'm not voting for anyone."

"Both parties have failed to some degree" is a generous way of framing it. How many politicians are even espousing the end of poverty, versus some kind of band-aid?

Politicians, to me, are liars. They make big promises that many know they can’t keep. All they do is go to DC or Jeff City and collect a check. Some have good intentions and I respect those that have those good intentions, but most are in it for the money and that’s clear through their actions. I dislike politicians, it’s just the way I am. Everyone is different with their opinions on that, and I’m fine with that. And as much as I respect everyone’s decision on if they support the politicians and two party system, I request the same respect back for my own beliefs. I don’t have to share the same beliefs with everyone to get along. That’s true in my family and friend circle. We keep politics at a minimum but when it’s brought into the discussion, a civil discussion is held.

If Ron Swanson was a real person and not a TV show character, I’d be more like him.

On another note, and it seems to have flown over our heads, State Senator Brian William’s Chokehold Ban and Police Reform Bill passed with overwhelming Bi-Partisan support. The House voted in favor with 140 yes votes and 4 no votes. It goes to the Governor’s desk now. I haven’t seen the vote tally for the Senate vote.

https://www.missourinet.com/2021/05/13/ ... sons-desk/

Senator Andrew Koenig’s Wayfair Bill passed the State Senate 25-4. The bill would allow the state to impose a sales tax on online purchases made through vendors with a physical presence in the state, known as a Wayfair tax — a practice adopted by most other states. The bill would also phase out video service provider fees, modify the use tax economic nexus, and enact a Voluntary Firefighter Cancer Benefits Trust.

It also includes a .1 percent income tax cut.

https://themissouritimes.com/final-week ... ay-may-13/

The Second Amendment Protection Act passed the State Senate on a party line vote of 22-10 and goes back to the House. Could be taken up today and then sent to the Governor later for signing. This measure would protect Missourians from Federal Gun Laws.

The bill also makes posting the names, home addresses, phone numbers and social security numbers of law enforcement officers, corrections officers, parole officers and prosecutors or their immediate family members a class E felony.

It's a felony to post the names of police officers? That sounds a bit, uh, super bad. Oh but the officer can't choke you to death unless they claim they feared for their life, so you see the Police have been Reformed.

And then of course an income tax cut so we can make sure we can't afford to fund services. Sorry you're too poor to pay for your kid's cancer treatment, the state is too busy glad-handing capitalists to help you. Try being born wealthy in your next life!

politicians have to work within the system, imperfect as it may be. to get elected, they have to make promises. what's the alternative? "if elected, i will sit on my ass and browse the internet all day!" yeah, some are crooks. and some are well intentioned. change is slow because the crooks work against the well-intentioned. and yes, the system needs fixing. there are too many career pols that use their offices to enrich themselves. that doesn't mean they're all crooks, especially at the local level. it's such a sweeping, ridiculous, defeatist, cynical generalization.

What would be defeatist is to accept the system as it is. Improvement comes from direct action, not arguing about red vs blue.

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

May 14, 2021

The bill also makes posting the names, home addresses, phone numbers and social security numbers of law enforcement officers, corrections officers, parole officers and prosecutors or their immediate family members a class E felony.

It's a felony to post the names of police officers? That sounds a bit, uh, super bad. Oh but the officer can't choke you to death unless they claim they feared for their life, so you see the Police have been Reformed.

And then of course an income tax cut so we can make sure we can't afford to fund services. Sorry you're too poor to pay for your kid's cancer treatment, the state is too busy glad-handing capitalists to help you. Try being born wealthy in your next life!

Here's the language from the HB 53 synopsis: 

OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL POSTING OF CERTAIN INFORMATION ONLINE (Section 565.240)

Under current law, a person commits the offense of unlawful posting of certain information over the internet if he or she knowingly posts the name, home address, Social Security number, or telephone number of any person on the internet intending to cause great bodily harm or death, or threatening to cause great bodily harm or death to such person. Such offense is a Class C misdemeanor.

This act modifies the current offense by adding "any other personally identifiable information" and further provides that if a person knowingly posts the name, home address, Social Security number, telephone number, or any other personally identifiable information of any law enforcement officer, corrections officer, parole officer, or prosecuting attorney, or the information of an immediate family member of such officers, he or she shall be guilty of a Class E felony.

Still some ambiguity in there. It's not clear to me whether a news outlet that knowingly posts the name of a law enforcement officer online would be guilty of a Class E felony. Perhaps the "intent to cause great bodily harm or death" part would still apply and therefore the online news source wouldn't be breaking the law? It's not clear. 

chriss752 wrote: ↑

May 14, 2021

The Second Amendment Protection Act passed the State Senate on a party line vote of 22-10 and goes back to the House. Could be taken up today and then sent to the Governor later for signing. This measure would protect Missourians from Federal Gun Laws.

This measure would do nothing to protect Missourians and in fact, if the courts allow its full implementation, would probably lead to more crime and violence in the state as looser gun laws almost always do. Framing this as a protection of Missourians is partisan bullsh*t that directly contradicts any objective data on the subject. You can claim guns are more important to you than reducing crime or making people safer, that's an opinion and value matter, but it there isn't a debate that having looser gun laws leads to more violence and more deaths.

wabash wrote: ↑

May 14, 2021

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

May 14, 2021

The bill also makes posting the names, home addresses, phone numbers and social security numbers of law enforcement officers, corrections officers, parole officers and prosecutors or their immediate family members a class E felony.

It's a felony to post the names of police officers? That sounds a bit, uh, super bad. Oh but the officer can't choke you to death unless they claim they feared for their life, so you see the Police have been Reformed.

And then of course an income tax cut so we can make sure we can't afford to fund services. Sorry you're too poor to pay for your kid's cancer treatment, the state is too busy glad-handing capitalists to help you. Try being born wealthy in your next life!

Here's the language from the HB 53 synopsis: 

OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL POSTING OF CERTAIN INFORMATION ONLINE (Section 565.240)

Under current law, a person commits the offense of unlawful posting of certain information over the internet if he or she knowingly posts the name, home address, Social Security number, or telephone number of any person on the internet intending to cause great bodily harm or death, or threatening to cause great bodily harm or death to such person. Such offense is a Class C misdemeanor.

This act modifies the current offense by adding "any other personally identifiable information" and further provides that if a person knowingly posts the name, home address, Social Security number, telephone number, or any other personally identifiable information of any law enforcement officer, corrections officer, parole officer, or prosecuting attorney, or the information of an immediate family member of such officers, he or she shall be guilty of a Class E felony.

Still some ambiguity in there. It's not clear to me whether a news outlet that knowingly posts the name of a law enforcement officer online would be guilty of a Class E felony. Perhaps the "intent to cause great bodily harm or death" part would still apply and therefore the online news source wouldn't be breaking the law? It's not clear. 

News organizations will be fine, but protest organizers chanting to jail Officer Kidkiller will have this piled onto the charges.

Honestly I'm surprised they didn't also legalize running protestors over with your car.

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

May 14, 2021

wabash wrote: ↑

May 14, 2021

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

May 14, 2021

It's a felony to post the names of police officers? That sounds a bit, uh, super bad. Oh but the officer can't choke you to death unless they claim they feared for their life, so you see the Police have been Reformed.

And then of course an income tax cut so we can make sure we can't afford to fund services. Sorry you're too poor to pay for your kid's cancer treatment, the state is too busy glad-handing capitalists to help you. Try being born wealthy in your next life!

Here's the language from the HB 53 synopsis: 

OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL POSTING OF CERTAIN INFORMATION ONLINE (Section 565.240)

Under current law, a person commits the offense of unlawful posting of certain information over the internet if he or she knowingly posts the name, home address, Social Security number, or telephone number of any person on the internet intending to cause great bodily harm or death, or threatening to cause great bodily harm or death to such person. Such offense is a Class C misdemeanor.

This act modifies the current offense by adding "any other personally identifiable information" and further provides that if a person knowingly posts the name, home address, Social Security number, telephone number, or any other personally identifiable information of any law enforcement officer, corrections officer, parole officer, or prosecuting attorney, or the information of an immediate family member of such officers, he or she shall be guilty of a Class E felony.

Still some ambiguity in there. It's not clear to me whether a news outlet that knowingly posts the name of a law enforcement officer online would be guilty of a Class E felony. Perhaps the "intent to cause great bodily harm or death" part would still apply and therefore the online news source wouldn't be breaking the law? It's not clear. 

News organizations will be fine, but protest organizers chanting to jail Officer Kidkiller will have this piled onto the charges.

Honestly I'm surprised they didn't also legalize running protestors over with your car.

The new language must still require the "intent to cause bodily harm" element, otherwise it's completely untenable. It'd be a Class E felony for a school teacher to tweet a thank you to an officer for speaking to her class about public safety.