Does The Most Powerful Man In Missouri Support The Autism Bill He Says He Supports?
Yesterday, hoping to get the jump on an already-scheduled series of announcements by Gov. Jay Nixon, Sen. Scott Rupp and Sen. Eric Schmitt, Speaker Ron Richard held a "hastily announced" conference call to express his support for autism insurance legislation, and specifically, for a bill sponsored by Rep. Dwight Scharnhorst.
Richard's about-face was surprising, given his role in killing similar legislation last year because it wasn't supported by insurance companies. What makes his supposed support for Scharnhorst's bill even more interesting is that (1) it's already publicly opposed by the insurance lobby and (2) identical to the legislation supported by Nixon, Rupp, Schmitt and bipartisan majorities in both chambers.
But today, the Post-Dispatch's Virginia Young reports that Richard "stopped short of endorsing" Nixon's four-part proposal on autism, even though Nixon's is proposing that the General Assembly pass... the bill Richard said he supported yesterday.
But Richard, R-Joplin, stopped short of endorsing Nixon’s proposal. Richard said he would refer the matter to a yet-undetermined committee, which would craft a bill.
“I’m endorsing the position that comes out of the House, whatever the final product is,” Richard said.
Insurers oppose Nixon’s proposal, contending that it will drive up insurance premiums and price some people out of the market.
“We’ll have to work through the process to try and improve it and make it workable, but drafts we’ve seen certainly are huge cost-drivers,” said Calvin Call, executive director of the Missouri Insurance Coalition.
Last summer, Richard appointed an interim committee to develop a consensus, but none has emerged. The speaker said Thursday that “if there isn’t a compromise, I will see that there is.”
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but why can't Richard just support the legislation he said he supported yesterday? Instead of expressing a clear position, he says "I'm endorsing the position that comes out of the House, whatever the final product is," which I interpret to mean he'll endorse whatever position the insurance lobby says he and Steve Tilley can pass.
Scharnhorst's bill has a bipartisan group of cosponsors, Nixon supports it, the GOP Senators support it-- it should be a done deal. So why can't Richard just do what he said he would do yesterday?
-----------------------------------
On a related note, this tweet and retweet from Richard's spokesperson Kristen Blanchard, and Peter Kinder's spokesperson Gary McElyea, are incredible:
What "coat tails" and "past work," exactly does Richard's spokesperson think other people are riding? The work it took to kill the legislation last year when bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate wanted to pass the bill? Or the awesome work the interim interim autism committee appointed by Richard that couldn't develop a consensus?
This is the "past work" I recall from The Most Powerful Man in Missouri, as explained by the same Kristen Blanchard, via Missouri Digital News:
Republican Speaker Ron Richard is the one who stalled an autism bill , killing it in the House.
Earlier in the day, several House committee chairmen pointed fingers at who was responsible for the casualty.
Finally, the Speaker's communications director, Kristen Blanchard admitted the House will not be taking up the bill at the direction of Richard.
Previously, all signs pointed to a bill passing the legislature and the House Health Care Policy Committee chair says he was surprised and disappointed the bill was blocked.
What a joke.
