I went to a local cancer survivor support group the other night to talk about the three ballot issues in Ohio. It wasn’t like that: they invited me and they also know I’m not a cancer survivor. I have some standards.
We talked about the big marquee issue, Issue Two, an issue I refer to exclusively as Vote No On Two, over and over and over, but I had some trouble holding their attention on Issue Three.
Issue Three in Ohio is a Tea Party sponsored constitutional amendment that seeks to nullify the federal health care law. You’re going to be hearing about it next week. I think it will pass because the ballot language is very favorable to the Tea Party:
TO PRESERVE THE FREEDOM OF OHIOANS TO CHOOSE THEIR HEALTH CARE AND HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
To talk about Issue Three one has to discuss the Supremacy Clause:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
People weren’t interested in that. They might have been, but I stupidly responded to a states’ rights question at the outset of the Issue Three portion, started babbling about the Supremacy Clause, got all worked up, veered off into states’ rights, and civil rights and somehow ended up bogged down in a (The) Civil War, so I just gave up and went to the cookie and cider table.
I’ve since had a chance to think about how the Tea Party amendment, what we’ll call No On Issue Three, might adversely affect one part of Ohio law: medical support orders. Medical support orders are a child support provision that applies to all non-custodial unmarried parents of minor children, and they are in effect in one or another version in all 50 states. Medical support orders began evolving at the federal level in 1993, and were expanded and nationally standardized further under former President Bush in the summer of 2008.
This is Ohio Issue Three (pdf):
1. In Ohio, no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.
2. In Ohio, no law or rule shall prohibit the purchase or sale of health care or health
Insurance.
3. In Ohio, no law or rule shall impose a penalty or fine for the sale or purchase of health care or health insurance.
This is (basically) how Medical Support Orders work in Ohio: an unmarried non-custodial parent must either purchase health insurance for their child, reimburse the state for some portion of state-provided health insurance if the child is covered under a state program and the family is over 150% of poverty level, or pay “cash medical support”. Medical support orders are, among other things, a health insurance mandate.
Now, the Tea Party will tell you that this portion of their sloppily drafted law will “save” existing law:
The proposed amendment would not:
1. Affect laws or rules in effect as of March 19, 2010
I don’t agree. I think the Tea Party amendment freezes Ohio health care law as of March 19, 2010 and any change in existing law, no matter how slight, may trigger a challenge to the many, many Ohio health care laws we all know and love.
For comparison, here’s the relevant portions of the Virginia nullification law, which was completely politically motivated and offered in bad faith BUT was drafted by someone other than Frank Luntz:
…except as required by a court or the Department of Social Services where an individual is named a party in a judicial or administrative proceeding.
…This section shall not apply to individuals
voluntarily applying for coverage under a state-administered program pursuant to Title XIX or Title XXI of the Social Security Act.
…This section shall not apply to students being required by an institution of higher education to obtain and maintain health insurance as a condition of enrollment.
See the exceptions? The Tea Party-drafted constitutional amendment in Ohio doesn’t have those. Oops. No On Issue Three will probably pass and it will be portrayed as a huge win for the Tea Party. It’s a gimmick that might get serious, a purely political ploy that might turn into the Full Employment Act for lawyers. I think that’s why no elected Republican in Ohio has explicitly endorsed it.
sherparick
Actually, since many Tea Party supporters are dead beat dads, this may be a feature, not a negative.
I think instead of getting into the Supremacy language debate, I would tell people that Issue 3 is a vote to eliminate healthy care act and shift expenses on those who pay insurance and those gambliing that they will be the first person ever to live forever and never be sick. And if they lose their gamble, you folks pay.
I would also tell them that Issue 3 is a lie promoted by the 1%.
Nemesis
Voted absentee today:
NO on Issue 1
NO on Issue 2
NO on Issue 3
Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937
With local elections coming up, property tax rate discussions are all the rage. One big driver of my county rates is Medicaid. Its fun to point out that this huge burden pretty much goes away when HCRA is fully implemented and all these poor people around here are insured. There goes the Kenyan Marxist again, lowering my property tax rates.
Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937
@Nemesis: Is that your NEIN-NEIN-NEIN plan?
catclub
As I see it, and vaccinations required by schools cannot change from their status as of 2010. Otherwise it breaks #2.
Also those medical releases for school athletes. No changes allowed.
windshouter
If no rule in Ohio can prohibit the sale of health insurance, maybe I could offer health insurance in Ohio. My insurance would be big on collecting premiums, but I’d only pay out if I actually had the money at the time to pay a claim. It’s just me, so I don’t think it’s likely I’d have the money that often. Some might call this fraud, but the constitution of Ohio would call it health insurance
Paul in KY
@Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937: (snare drum roll & cymbal crash)
arthur
windsurfer: It’s better than that. Ohio won’t be able to prohibit the sale of healthcare. Up until now, the state has refused to let me open my brain surgery center, for no reason except racism (I’m white), and the fact that I’m not a doctor. I’ll be in business soon!
BruceFromOhio
Was fixing to link to the excellent Plunderbund article, but I see you already got it. Thanks, Kay, the first I heard of Issue 3 was rolling through the now-bare cornfields of Sandusky, a HUGE sign in some poor lubs front yard exhorting all to “Vote *YES* on Issues 2 & 3!” Hopefully between that linkage, the wave of NO ON ISSUE 2, the consistent thumbs-down on the editorials, there’s room for some last minute GOTV to tip that heifer over and put her down but good.
@@1937: LOL, yep, that’s the Ohio 999 plan!
Steve
Amazingly, not only is the Affordable Care Act the most horrible and liberty-crushing law of all time, but health care and health insurance regulation achieved nirvana just before the ACA was passed and can never be improved upon in the future. Who knew?
chopper
fine. so, no ohio state law shall do that. federal law, however, will. sounds good.
witch doctor
@arthur:
Good point. Can’t prohibit sale of health care either, so us witch doctors can start treating whatever ails, with weed and psychedelic muschrooms. State-administered Medicaid better start paying for it, too.
jron
Just wondering, is there recourse to overturn a deliberately poorly worded ballot initiative?
Here in Georgia we outlawed gay marriage with a question that made no mention at all of gay marriage and did not include the legal text. It just asked whether you thought marriage was important (it has been years now so I can’t remember it verbatim). I almost voted yes, since there was nothing written that I actually agreed with, only I knew what it was for. But I had to scroll through all the initiatives on the ballot to be sure this was the gay-marriage one.
Seems like the wording of an initiative, if deliberately confusing to an uninformed (or even informed) voter could be cause for overturning, but I’ve never heard of this being tried.
Mnemosyne
@sherparick:
That was my first thought, too. They didn’t accidentally overlook the problem with the law, they deliberately wrote it that way.