A tenther anti-Obamacare bill has been prefiled in the Missouri Senate:

“…The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The state of Missouri hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Missouri regarding the right of all persons residing in this state in choosing the mode of securing health care services…”

Uh, the United States Supreme Court has already weighed in on this.

The bill:

SB 546 Modifies Missouri’ Health Care Freedom Act by prohibiting the state from implementing a health insurance exchange, prohibiting insurers from accepting remuneration that may result in penalties violative of the act, and prescribing duties of the Attorney General for enforceme

Sponsor: Lamping

LR Number: 4499S.01I Fiscal Note not available

Committee:

Last Action: 12/1/2013 – Prefiled

Current Bill Summary

SB 546 – This act modifies what is commonly known as the Health Care Freedom Act which was approved by the Missouri voters in 2010. The act restates Missouri’s public policy of allowing its citizens the freedom to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without facing a penalty and provides that it is against Missouri public policy to implement or operate a health insurance exchange in Missouri. The act also posits several findings of fact of how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and implementing a state-based exchange would subject Missouri citizens and employers to penalties. The act further provides that if a health insurance issuer operating in Missouri accepts any remuneration that may result in the imposition of penalties contrary to Missouri’s public policy, then the Director of Insurance shall suspend the issuer’s license to transact business in Missouri. The suspension will stay in place until the issuer represents that it has returned the remuneration to its source and will decline any such future remuneration. The act further imposes a duty upon the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief and other appropriate remedies whenever the public policy set forth in the act is being violated.

This act is identical to SB 473 (2013).

Yes, yes, we can already tell that the 2014 regular session is going to be the most productive in Missouri history.

State Senator Brad Lager (R-12), who is also candidate for Lieutenant Governor,  hyperventilates on the Obamacare mandate-as-a-tax ruling of the Supreme Court :

I am disappointed in the Supreme Court’s ruling today, that upheld the single largest tax increase in the world.

Got that? Then take a look at the estimated revenue effect of the mandate (in GOP speak, the “enormous new tax”) compared to past tax increases (note especially the Reagan tax increase):

Does it look to you like the chart above show us the “biggest tax increase in the history of the world”? Looks to me more like what Josh Marshall labels it, “clearly one of tiniest ones in history.” Somebody ought to let Mr. Lager know that hyperbole isn’t always a wise rhetorical choice if one doesn’t want to appear foolish.

There are, though, some additional new taxes in the Affordable Care Act – which fact inspires horror in Rep. Todd Akin (R-2) (via facebook):

Americans will have to pay at least $675 billion in new taxes because of Obamacare. I support full repeal.

And the problem, Todd, is what exactly? It will insure a majority of the currently uninsured Missourians. Add to that almost inestimable benefit, the fact that it will prevent price gouging on the part of insurance companies – $64.5 million in insurance overcharges will be refunded to Missourians this year alone –  and it seems like a good bargain to me when we compare what we get to the cost in new taxes. As TPM’s Brian Beutler notes when he does the numbers:

… even if you include the sum total of all the revenue-raising provisions in the ACA – and there are many taxes in it – it’s still smaller than the Reagan, Bush and Clinton tax increases.

Kevin Drum offers the best summary of  the taxing (to the GOP) nature of new Obamacare taxes:

It’s fair for Republicans to complain that ACA includes a bunch of new taxes. It does. Most of them fall on high earners and corporations, not the middle class, but they’re still taxes. However, the “biggest tax increase in history” nonsense is crazy, and no news outlet interested in accuracy should let it pass without challenge.

See also “Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): when right wingnut talk radio gasbags feed you your talking points…“

If there’s no public option:

Unpopular

From the few tea leaves I get to see, I’m getting the sense that people on The Hill are not even having the conversation about just how unpopular forcing people to buy shitty insurance they don’t want is going to be.

Mandate + No Public Option = Unpopular taxpayer bailout of private insurance

…The Baucus bill is a mandate with no price controls, because it lacks a public health insurance option to increase competition with private insurance…

May 27, 2009:

Senator Claire McCaskill in Sedalia – May 27, 2009 – part 4

….Question: Thank you for coming today. And  many people whine about taxes., but my family, we’re paying like over seven thousand dollars a year in health premiums. And I’d much rather trade that in for a national health care system. And I appreciate what my taxes buy. [applause]

Senator McCaskill: Well, thank, thank you for that. Does anybody mind if I read another. [laughter] You know, I, I do not think we’ll do a, the President doesn’t support, and I don’t support a single payer system. I think competition in the marketplace and choices is very, very important in health care. Now, if we enact these reforms and , but I have a feeling that this is gonna work, because I think we’re gonna have the kind of competition that will drive down costs. And, we gotta make sure that the government run health program is fair, because we don’t want it to be so overwhelming that it stamps out all the private insurance. ‘Cause we want that healthy friction in competition, between the two. We certainly have had competition as it’s related to the, the, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle want to do with health care what we did with Medicare D. Which is a government sponsored but completely private program. Well, you know, yeah, there’s competition there. Sometimes there’s so much competition it’s confusing, seniors don’t know whether they’re going or coming, whether drugs are covered or not, whether they’re getting a good deal or a bad deal. But the problem with that is, we built into that program six billion dollars worth of profit on taxpayers for the pharmaceutical industry. Well that doesn’t seem right to me. They actually put in the bill that we couldn’t buy bulk to get down prices. Well that’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard of. So I don’t think we want to emulate Medicare D because I don’t think we can afford it. I don’t think we can afford to plus up certain silos of profit in the health care industry.  I think we can figure out ways to provide competition and choices and to bring down costs. And that are the three goals. Competition, choices, and bring down costs. And I’m kind of excited. I think we’re actually gonna get a bill this year. I feel pretty good about it. [applause]…

December 15, 2008:

Claire McCaskill (D): “Kitchen Table Talk” in Kansas City, part 3

…Question: On the issue of health care, this is a great opportunity to jump right in there, you know there’s a lot of [inaudible] thought, you know, early in the campaign health care was really being talked about by the group of [inaudible] candidates, by Barack Obama, by John McCain, so we thought this, the stars were aligned, health care is actually going to get dealt with, but then we had this little economic problem kind of creep up towards in there and everybody said, “It’s never going to happen!” But I was wondering if you had any insight, from the outset he picked Daschle, given the appointments that he did, that perhaps the impetus for reform now actually exist than the whole possibility of stimulus, in terms of the economic problems that may actually help push health reform along. So I just kind of wanted your insight on that.

Claire McCaskill: Well, I think Daschle’s going to be a very strong – he clearly, I mean I’d recommend his book on health care reform to anybody who hasn’t read it. He’s really knowledgeable in this area and this was what he really wanted to do because he is driven in terms of wanting to work on health care reform in this country. I think we will get at some serious health care reform within the first, hopefully the first of two terms, but the first Barack Obama administration. I think they’ll be some nibbling around the edges on some health care reform, possibly even in the stimulus. Expansion of the ability to stay on COBRA for example. Some, some additional funding for children’s health insurance. Potentially some tweaking of the Medicare rates. I think all of those are within the realm of possibility in the stimulus. But nobody is backing off at really taking a whack at the silos of profit in the health care industry and reconfiguring health care so it’s more efficient, effective and certainly more preventative. Yes?…

“…I don’t think we can afford to plus up certain silos of profit in the health care industry.  I think we can figure out ways to provide competition and choices and to bring down costs. And that are the three goals. Competition, choices, and bring down costs…”

“…But nobody is backing off at really taking a whack at the silos of profit in the health care industry…”

We’re waiting.