There’s some buzz in Jefferson City over Sen. Jane Cunningham’s constitutional amendment that would shield Missouri from participating in any federal initiative that forces people to buy health insurance.
The health insurance is a big part of the federal health care bill, along with potentially barring the denial of insurance due to “pre-existing conditions” and providing subsidies for people to purchase private insurance.
Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, told the St. Louis Beacon that she had 16 co-sponsors to her resolution, which states “no law shall compel a patient, employer, or health care provider to participate in any government or privately run health care system, nor prohibit a patient or employer from paying directly for legal health care services.” The amendment would need to be approved by voters in order to be implemented.
But the thing about the Missouri Senate is that a majority vote – even a solid majority vote – doesn’t equate to passage. If a group of senators filibuster the measure, it can spell doom.
At least one Mid-Missouri lawmaker – Sen. Wes Shoemyer, D-Clarence – said the resolution was premature, because he said there’s no guarantee Congress will pass a health insurance requirement.
“It seems that she and the cosponsors are jumping the gun to me,” Shoemyer said, adding that the General Assembly needs to see what Congress passes before taking any action. “And it’s one of those political footballs that are going to be floated around this year.”
Indeed, the formation of federal health care legislation is very much in flux right now. There are doubts whether a government-run insurance option will make it into the final bill. And it could be possible that a requirement to buy health insurance – or any bill at all – might not pass.
But Shoemyer added that if something “meaningful” does pass, he will fight Cunningham’s amendment. And he said it would be possible that some in the Democratic Caucus – which is outnumbered 23-11 – would join him.
“If there is something meaningful passed, where people can buy into the same plans as federal employees or the lowering of Medicare option down to 55 [years] or some kind of public expansion, I will fight vigorously against that,” Shoemyer said. “Because I believe in the expansion of health care and I believe one of those two things would lower costs and much more inclusive for those folks who have pre-existing conditions.”
“If we don’t unite on that issue,” added Shoemyer. “I don’t know else we would.”
By the way, Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, is not one of the co-sponsors to Cunningham’s resolution. He said in a telephone interview he would need to review the amendment before taking a position.
“The other thing obviously is that there is no legislation yet out of the federal government,” Schaefer said. “We don’t know what that’s going to look like yet. But I haven’t had a chance to review her bill yet.”
Schaefer said there are some aspects of the federal health care legislation that concern him. Those, he said, potential cuts to Medicare and the “cost increases to those who have private insurance” could be “extremely substantial.” He also said there could be serious consequences if the federal government forces the states to expand Medicaid, the health care program aimed at the poor.
“If that were the case that the federal government were to force us to expand Medicaid, that money would have to come from education or it would have to come from somewhere,” Schaefer said. “Because we simply don’t have it.”
Tags: kurt schaefer, mandates, public option, wes shoemyerCategories: Business.
