Ohio Voters Say No Thanks to ObamaCare's Health Insurance Mandate

Peter Suderman | November 9, 2011

On the same day that a D.C. appeals court voted 2-1 to uphold the constitutionality of ObamaCare's individual mandate to purchase health insurance, voters in Ohio rejected any law that would impose such a requirement. Via The Hill:

[The] Ohio initiative is another sign of how just unpopular the mandate is. Democrats — and labor, a key ally of Obama’s during the healthcare debate turned out heavily in Ohio for a separate ballot question on collective bargaining. But even with strong turnout around a traditionally Democratic issue, 66 percent of voters had supported the anti-mandate initiative at the time the Associated Press called the vote.

Ohio isn't the first state where the public has formally weighed in against the mandate. Missouri voters passed a similar measure last year by an even larger margin. The problem with both measures, however, is that they're largely symbolic; if the Supreme Court eventually upholds the mandate, then most experts agree that ruling would probably allow the federal government's mandate to preempt state law.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

Suki|11.9.11 @ 11:46AM|#

How long until Obama deploys troops to quell the insurrection?

Capitalists do call out troops|11.9.11 @ 11:53AM|#

Haymarket massacre|11.9.11 @ 11:55AM|#

The deeply polarized attitudes separating business and working class people in late 19th-century Chicago are generally acknowledged as having precipitated the tragedy and its aftermath.

Suki|11.9.11 @ 1:05PM|#

Check out old-school OWS. Remember, everything old becomes new again.

sarcasmic|11.9.11 @ 11:46AM|#

I was saying boo-urns.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=up4LTKxe0PA

Libertarian statists say|11.9.11 @ 11:47AM|#

"no thank you" to those who want to assert their right to move freely about the land. Instead, they want the power of the agricultural city-STATE to force people to follow arbitrary lines of demarcation. Their system of land enTITLEment is enforced through the Rothbardian power of the police.
Officer, am I free to gambol about forest and plane?

Gambol Lockdown. Health too.|11.9.11 @ 11:56AM|#

Same city-State (civilization) principle of being externally invasive, and internally repressive.

fish|11.9.11 @ 12:13PM|#

Officer, am I free to gambol about forest and plane?

Think it's bad now? Wait till she wants to gambol in the 3rd dimension!

Officer, am I free to gambol about X - Y and Z-axes?

Drug War = Gambol War|11.9.11 @ 12:18PM|#

On that plane of thought.

|11.9.11 @ 12:26PM|#

"no thank you" to those who want to assert their right to move freely about the land.

I own land. If you don't fuck shit up i prety much don;t care if you walk across it.

One thing should be noted. Stone age hunter gatherers were notoriously territorial.

Walking across their land was a good way to get tied, hung and skinned alive.

Beloved Rev. Blue Moon|11.9.11 @ 11:56AM|#

I want to make the limited observation that this is not only an awesome instance of "towing the lion", but a stellar example of irony.

The War on Gambol|11.9.11 @ 12:19PM|#

...on a drug-induced plane of thought.

Gambol Lockdown. Health too.|11.9.11 @ 11:57AM|#

King Obama|11.9.11 @ 11:57AM|#

will probably send swarms of officers to harass the people and eat out their substance. It's a good thing we didn't talk about that in a Declaration of Independence...

Swarms of capitalists =|11.9.11 @ 11:58AM|#

Trail of Tears.

Ham flavored!|11.9.11 @ 12:14PM|#

BelowTheRim|11.9.11 @ 12:31PM|#

No, Manifest Destiny = Trail of tears.

Sweet straw man fallacy though.

sarcasmic|11.9.11 @ 12:02PM|#

From http://www.isil.org/resources/.....ation.html

They have "erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat our their Substance." The IRS, Justice Department, police, State and local revenue authorities and a multitude of other government agencies have engaged in an escalating orgy of terror, legalized looting and wholesale seizure of private property to feed the appetite of arrogant and rapacious bureaucracies.

Rapacious Farmers |11.9.11 @ 12:17PM|#

Agriculture creates government. ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p.73

Mercy Mii|11.9.11 @ 12:07PM|#

if the Supreme Court eventually upholds the mandate, then most experts agree that ruling would probably allow the federal government's mandate to preempt state law.

Of course, whether the states would allow such preemption is a topic for debate. Interesting times.

romulus augustus|11.9.11 @ 12:34PM|#

What, Manassas/Bull Run III?

|11.9.11 @ 12:14PM|#

Unintentional irony?

Change-Wary U.S. Voters Reject Ohio Union Curbs, Abortion Ban

Where were those "change-wary" bastards three years ago?

There is no "we"|11.9.11 @ 12:27PM|#

They were contemplating the prospect of a Sarah Palin presidency contingent upon the continued good health of a seventy-something cancer survivor.

romulus augustus|11.9.11 @ 12:36PM|#

Had Cain picked Ridge, who knows?
(Not that I like Ridge.)

|11.9.11 @ 12:21PM|#

In other election news it appears it will soon be legal to buy liquor in a grocery store in Washington state.

And this is despite all the ads at reason.com telling Washington voters to turn down the initiative.

Forgettable Paul|11.9.11 @ 12:28PM|#

I'm cautiously optimistic. These initiatives have been put forth in various flavors for a couple of decades and every one of them has failed. I can't quite figure out why washington voters said yes on "this" one-- alas, I did not study the exact initiative text closely. I mainly went by the ads: Saying Yes on 1183 gives our children access to liquor! Vote NO!

That was enough to sell me on a "yes" vote right there.

The other half is that by virtue of this becoming legal, we just "laid off" 900 state liquor store employees. Someone's going to fight that.

Forgettable Paul|11.9.11 @ 12:30PM|#

Oh, and we voted down a $60 car tab increase with extreme prejudice. I guess that even Washington voters can get tired of new taxes.

|11.9.11 @ 12:37PM|#

"The problem with both measures, however, is that they're largely symbolic; if the Supreme Court eventually upholds the mandate, then most experts agree that ruling would probably allow the federal government's mandate to preempt state law."

In which case armed insurrection would be the only justifiable course of action. The final nail in the coffin for American federalism will hopefully trigger something of that magnitute.

*magnitude

|11.9.11 @ 12:52PM|#

Pop-POP!

|11.9.11 @ 1:17PM|#

That hurt my feelings

T|11.9.11 @ 1:26PM|#

You're a libertarian, you don't have 'feelings'.

I guess that even Washington voters can get tired of new taxes.

Won't someone think of the starving, shoeless children of Liquor Ladlers Local 318?

Forgettable Paul|11.9.11 @ 12:39PM|#

I did exactly that when filling in my "Yes" circle. Let them work in the private sector and eat yellow mustard, like the rest of us common folk.

So|11.9.11 @ 12:55PM|#

It's more about revenge and class hatred, then?

Forgettable Paul|11.9.11 @ 1:08PM|#

No, it's the 2x4 of reality.

When you earn 3x what the equivalent private sector worker in the same racket earns, you're in a make-work job.

mr simple|11.9.11 @ 2:00PM|#

Alt-text: Now I'm gonna stick me thumb up it's bum. That'll really piss 'im off.

EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|11.9.11 @ 5:21PM|#

Wasn't there some troll in here a week-'nd-a-bit ago telling us how the polls were clear and this was going down?

Who was that, and where is he?

I wish to gloat, damnit! Come back here and take it like a man!

Reason.com