From: Lisa Pannett <email@example.com>
To: Lisa Pannett <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 9:31 AM
Subject: St. Louis County Council Mtg
BILL NO. 279, 2012, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS DOLAN AND BURKETT, ENTITLED:
AMENDING SLCRO 1974 AS AMENDED BY REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 107.146, 202.270, 717.010, 717.020, 717.030, 717.040, 717.050, 717.056, 718.020, 722.040 AND 722.050 PERTAINING TO DISCRIMINATION BY COUNTY CONTRACTORS OR IN CONNECTION WITH HOUSING OR PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS OR COUNTY EMPLOYMENT OR HATE CRIMES.
Item No. 1 – 5th District
Ms. Genevieve M. Frank, Administrative Director, submitted the Communication directed to Patricia Redington, St. Louis County Counselor, from The Honorable Patrick M. Dolan, Councilman for the 5th District, requesting legislation be prepared for introduction with regard to insuring the prohibition of discrimination against all persons in St. Louis County based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
Journal of the County Council Page 20 November 13, 2012
Add Ons - Continued
Moved by Councilman Dolan, and there being no objection, Chair O‟Mara ordered the Communication directed to Patricia Redington, St. Louis County Counselor, from The Honorable Patrick M. Dolan, Councilman for the 5th District, requesting legislation be prepared for introduction with regard to insuring the prohibition of discrimination against all persons in St. Louis County based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity, be received, filed and the County Counselor be directed to prepare the appropriate legislation.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Lisa Pannett <email@example.com> wrote:
Dear Friends,The St. Louis County Council is trying to pass legislation by an ordinance enforced by law that reads: Legislation to insure the prohibition of discrimination against all persons in St. Louis County based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.Example of how this could be used:A Catholic private school decides not to hire a man dressed as a woman because it goes against their beliefs.Any business decides based on merit that they do not want to hire an individual. This person who was having a gender identity issue now files a complaint. The company did not know they had a gender identity issue. This make employers, mind readers. How are we to know what sexual and or gender identity issues someone is having?All need to show up and voice their opposition to St. Louis County overstepping their bounds in social issues. These are state issues to be addressed not a county council issue. Please show up at 2:30 to sign in and speak at the County Council Chambers at 41 South Central Avenue in Clayton on Tuesday, November 20th. The short notice and time were also given so that people would not show up. Please show them that their continued underhanded tactics will not work and fill that room!God Bless!
Seven Reasons to Vote NO on Health Care Exchange
There is Only ONE Exchange. The Obamacare Exchange. There is no "state" exchange. There is only the federal Exchange. Obamacare requires States to establish a government-run federally-controlled American Health Benefit Exchange, which must comply with Obamacare and coming federal rules. As Grace-Marie Turner at Galen Institute said about Exchanges in Reason, "States will not be able to do it their way. They'll have to do it Washington's way."
"State Flexibility" is a Ruse. Obama is hoping a veneer of "flexibility" will convince state legislatures to establish the federal government-run Exchange in each state. As Michael Cannon at the CATO Institute writes in National Review:
"...federal control is not just the exchanges' default setting — it's the only setting. In a February 24 letter to the nation's governors, Sebelius extolled the four types of flexibility that Obamacare allows states in shaping their exchanges: 1) States can restrict insurers from participating; 2) states can add even more benefit mandates than Obamacare requires; 3) come 2017, states can opt out of Obamacare by creating a single-payer health-care system; and 4) states can adopt their own "governance structure" and "operational philosophy." In sum, states can impose harsher regulations than Obamacare requires and can choose who sits on their exchange's board. That's it. The only additional latitude the Obama administration has offered came when President Obama told the National Governors Association that he is open to letting them launch single-payer systems in 2014 rather than 2017. [emphasis ours]
Exchange is NOT a "Marketplace" and "Sunset" is Trojan Horse. RomneyCare's Connector (Exchange) first offered 24 choices of health plans, now only seven. The Wall Street Journal reported 5/13/11: "Mr. Romney's political appointees converted the architecture of the "connector" [Exchange] that was supposed to support individual and small-business insurance choice into a regulatory body dedicated to stamping it out." People without employer- sponsored coverage will be forced to buy insurance through the government-run Exchange. Government does not establish markets; its impedes them. And "Sunsets" allow objectionable language to become law -- usually permanently.
Costly to Taxpayers & Implements Obamaʼs "Single Payer" Agenda. A representative from Deloitte testified to the "adverse selection" problems from costs of the sicker population. He testified that some states with Exchanges today are considering the elimination of all health plans outside their Exchange. (all are grandfathered into Obamacare) The Feds only cover cost of adverse selection from 2014 – 2016. Also, annual operating cost of Exchange is likely $30-$50M.
Exchange Nationalizes Health Care. Tom Christina, former Deputy Asst. Attorney General during Reagan Administration told attendees at American Enterprise Institute forum in Washington, D.C. (12/6/10): the Exchange is "anti- market," "enforcement without federal fingerprints" and "nationalization-in-fact."
GOP will Share Blame with Obama. As with RomneyCare, GOP lawmakers will be blamed for joining Obama to nationalize health care and to undercut the lawsuits against Obamacare by complying with it before the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (Judge Vinson discussed undercutting in the multi-state Florida lawsuit).
12 States Say "NO": AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, IA, IN, LA, MS, MO, MT, NM
Yes, Obamacare can still be killed, one state at a time, just like we killed the RealID Act...
...but it will take a lot of work.
The first step is to keep Missouri from establishing the Obamacare health insurance exchange. Although 63% of Missourians voted to prohibit the governor from setting up an exchange last Tuesday, Prop E does not keep the state legislature from setting on up.
The senate Republicans will be meeting Friday and Saturday to dicuss their options. We have just a few days to convince them to comply with the people's will, and just say NO! to the exchange and all of Obamacare.
Here are some facts the media just won't point out:
Here are a couple of very good articles by the Cato Institute's Michael F. Cannon pointing out the need to fight the exchange:
Call or email each Republican senator before Thursday. Tell them the people of Missouri don't want them to set up an Obamacare exchange any more than they want the governor to. The sentiment behind the Prop E vote applies to them, too!
(Here are the senators for whom we have public contact information. Some of the new senators don't have published information yet.)
- Ron Calzone
President Obama has won reelection, and his administration has asked state officials to decide by Friday, November 16, whether their state will create one of Obamacare's health-insurance "exchanges." States also have to decide whether to implement the law's massive expansion of Medicaid. The correct answer to both questions remains a resounding no.
State-created exchanges mean higher taxes, fewer jobs, and less protection of religious freedom. States are better off defaulting to a federal exchange. The Medicaid expansion is likewise too costly and risky a proposition. Republican Governors Association chairman Bob McDonnell (R.,Va.) agrees, and has announced that Virginia will implement neither provision.
There are many arguments against creating exchanges.
First, states are under no obligation to create one.
Second, operating an Obamacare exchange would be illegal in 14 states. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia have enacted either statutes or constitutional amendments (or both) forbidding state employees to participate in an essential exchange function: implementing Obamacare's individual and employer mandates.
Third, each exchange would cost its state an estimated $10 million to $100 million per year, necessitating tax increases.
Fourth, the November 16 deadline is no more real than the "deadlines" for implementing REAL ID, which have been pushed back repeatedly since 2008.
Fifth, states can always create an exchange later if they choose.
Sixth, a state-created exchange is not a state-controlled exchange. All exchanges will be controlled by Washington.
Seventh, Congress authorized no funds for federal "fallback" exchanges. So Washington may not be able to impose Exchanges on states at all.
Eighth, the Obama administration has yet to provide crucial information that states need before they can make an informed decision.
Ninth, creating an exchange sets state officials up to take the blame when Obamacare increases insurance premiums and denies care to the sick. State officials won't want their names on this disastrous mess.
Tenth, creating an exchange would be assisting in the creation of a "public option" that would drive domestic health-insurance carriers out of business through unfair competition.
Eleventh, Obamacare remains unpopular. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 38 percent of the public supports it.
Twelfth, defaulting to a federal exchange exempts a state's employers from the employer mandate — a tax of $2,000 per worker per year (the tax applies to companies with more than 59 employees, but for such companies that tax applies after the 30th employee, not the 59th). If all states did so, that would exempt 18 million Americans from the individual mandate's tax of $2,085 per family of four. Avoiding those taxes improves a state's prospects for job creation, and protects the conscience rights of employers and individuals whom the Obama administration is forcing to purchase contraceptives coverage.
Finally, rejecting an exchange reduces the federal deficit. Obamacare offers its deficit-financed subsidies to private health insurers only through state-created exchanges. If all states declined, federal deficits would fall by roughly $700 billion over ten years.
For similar reasons, states should decline to implement Obamacare's Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court gave states that option. All states should exercise it.
Medicaid is rife with waste and fraud. It increases the cost of private health care and insurance, crowds out private health insurance and long-term-care insurance, and discourages enrollees from climbing the economic ladder. There is scant reliable evidence that Medicaid improves health outcomes, and no evidence that it is a cost-effective way of doing so.
My colleague Jagadeesh Gokhale estimates that expanding Medicaid will cost individual states up to $53 billion over the first ten years. That's before an emboldened President Obama follows through on his threats to shift more Medicaid costs to states.
Neither the states nor the federal government have the money to expand Medicaid. If all states politely decline, federal deficits will shrink by another $900 billion.
Now is not the time to go wobbly. Obamacare is still harmful and still unpopular. The presidential election was hardly a referendum, as it pitted the first person to enact Obamacare against the second person to enact it. Since the election, many state officials are reaffirming their opposition to both implementing exchanges and expanding Medicaid.
If enough states do so, Congress will have no choice but to reopen Obamacare. With a GOP-controlled House, opponents will be in a much stronger position than they were when this harmful law was enacted.
This article appeared in National Review (Online) on November 9, 2012.
Michael F. Cannon is the Cato Institute's director of health policy studies.