These days there are a lot of calls to make people pay their “fair share,” and no, we are not referring to the 1 percent. We are talking about smokers. The argument for raising the tax on cigarettes is straightforward—smoking is harmful to individuals, and though smoking is an individual decision, it impacts each of us. We all bear the brunt of additional health care costs incurred by smokers. These are what economists call negative externalities. They are, in theory, why smokers should be taxed more for their behavior—to offset their costs to society. Most proposals to raise the cigarette tax, however, seek to tax smokers to pay for unrelated programs, such as education.

For example, Erin Brower of Raise Your Hand for Kids is seeking to put a 50 cent increase on the ballot to fund early childhood programs. Missouri Treasurer Clint Zweifel has proposed an increase to fund college scholarships, an idea Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster supports. In a recent special to the Joplin Globe, Koster called for a 73 cent per pack increase. These are certainly not the first calls for increasing the tax. In the past 15 years, tobacco tax increases have appeared two times on the ballot. Each time Missouri voters have had the opportunity to tax smokers more, they have failed to do so. Why?

First, Missourians are leery of using “sin” taxes to fund other programs, especially education. This was the same tactic used to legalize gambling in Missouri. Lawmakers said the revenue from gambling would go to education. They did not tell voters, however, that the money would supplant not supplement existing funds to education. There are fears that the same would happen with proposals to raise tobacco taxes.

Second, using tobacco taxes to fund other programs simply does not make economic sense. Missouri’s lowest-in-the-nation tobacco taxes help draw in an untold number of shoppers across state lines, especially in Kansas City and along the Illinois border. These shoppers make it a point to buy their cigarettes in Missouri, thus creating sales for our local businesses and generating tax revenue for the state. Raising the tobacco tax would deter these shoppers.

Tobacco taxes also have the negative distinction of being one of the most regressive taxes. Smokers tend to be from lower-income households. At the same time, middle-income families would benefit from many of the programs created from increased tobacco taxes, such as college scholarships. Thus, if Zweifel and Koster’s proposal was implemented, low-income families would be subsidizing the college education of middle-income families. What is the “fair share” for smokers to pay for a middle-class student’s college education?

The truth of the matter is that smokers are an easy group to target. Few, except for other smokers, are sympathetic to their plight. At the same time, we all support better educational opportunities for Missouri students. Therefore, taxing smokers is a relatively easy way to raise taxes to fund educational programs.

If lawmakers are seriously concerned about the negative externalities causes by smokers, they should direct tobacco tax revenue directly back to smoking prevention programs and the Medicaid costs for smokers. That is the only logically and economically consistent use of the tax revenue.

James V. Shuls, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Missouri–St. Louis and a fellow at the Show-Me Institute, where Michael Rathbone is a policy researcher.

The post Taxing Smokers Does Not Show Support of Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Of the cities named in the lawsuit, only four (Bellerive Acres, Moline Acres, Normandy, and Vinita Terrace) were sued for actually exceeding the 30 percent cap. The other cities have been cited for failing to meet reporting requirements or using improper methods of recording fees as a percentage of revenue. For example, one city divided the fines it received in six months by total revenue for the entire year, in what appears a very ham-fisted attempt to show compliance with the law. The chart below, with data from Better Together, shows the portion of revenue from fines that each city named in the lawsuit collects.

This lawsuit may be a step in the right direction, but it is only one step. As we pointed out in a previous blog post, there are at least five other cities not listed in this lawsuit that have more than 30 percent of their revenue coming from fines and fees. Among these are Calverton Park and Bella Villa, which collect more than 50 percent of their revenue from fines. These municipalities may be within the law, but state confirmation of this seems prudent.

Furthermore, many cities in Saint Louis County, while perhaps not in violation of the law, are still collecting very large portions of their revenue through fines. Twelve municipalities, mostly in North Saint Louis County, collect between 20 and 30 percent of their revenue from fines. In most municipalities, this percentage is less than 15 percent. The state could lower the cap on fines in the Macks Creek Law to further protect state residents from law enforcement acting as tax collectors.

But as the current situation demonstrates, it matters little if fines are capped at 30 percent, 25 percent, or 15 percent of general revenue if the state does not enforce existing law. The state clearly has not done this in the past, and without the tragic events in North Saint Louis County and subsequent scrutiny of city policing tactics, who knows how long it would have taken for Macks Creek Law to be enforced? The state could benefit from a more systematic, not crisis driven, approach to statutory oversight.

The post Enforcing Macks Creek Law: Progress in Saint Louis County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While growing up in the small border town of Atchison,
Kan., my father, uncles, and family friends made frequent trips
over the Amelia Earhart Bridge to a small convenience store in
Buchanan County, Mo. They usually returned with a full gas
tank and small quantities of alcohol or cigarettes. I was too
young to understand what prompted these excursions. Now I
know. My father and others took advantage of Missouri’s low
excise tax rates on gas, alcohol, and cigarettes. As these trips
continued, sales and tax revenue were redistributed from Kansas
to Missouri. While the convenience store in Missouri remained
busy, the Shell station near the bridge in Atchison was often
empty.

Missouri benefited at Kansas’ expense as a direct result
of maintaining a lower tax rate in a competitive marketplace. In
2009, the QuikTrip on Southwest Blvd. in Kansas City, Kan.,
moved its location 100 feet into Missouri to take advantage of
the lower excise taxes. However, the situation that prompted this
move may be about to change.

Last fall, the Missouri Secretary of State gave approval to
a coalition of Missourians, led by the American Cancer Society,
to circulate a petition proposing an increase in the cigarette tax
from 17 cents to 90 cents per pack, a whopping 429 percent
increase. If passed, this proposal will stop the heavy cross-over
traffic of people coming to Missouri from other states to buy
cigarettes at a bargain price. In fact, business likely will shift in
the opposite direction – out of Missouri into other states.
Kansas’s 79-cent cigarette tax would certainly serve as an
appealing alternative to Missouri’s potential 90-cent tax. Under
the proposed increase, those who purchase cigarettes in Missouri
would pay $2.20 more per carton than they would if they
purchase cigarettes in Kansas.

While raising excise taxes might appear to be a simple way to
increase revenue, it can backfire and may even cause a loss in net
cigarette sales. Missouri’s two largest metropolitan areas, Saint Louis
and Kansas City, border states with much higher cigarette taxes,
prompting residents of neighboring Illinois and Kansas to make their
purchases here. Missouri’s 17-cent tax is certainly attractive to residents
of Illinois, where the tax rate is 98 cents, and Kansas, where the rate is
79 cents. Missouri benefits when residents of other states who come to
Missouri for work, sporting events, etc., voluntarily make such purchases
here.

Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, a proponent of raising
Missouri’s cigarette tax, claimed in the Kansas City Star that a fivefold
increase in the state’s cigarette tax would lift revenue by a commensurate
amount – from $90 million a year to close to $500 million. But Koster’s
figures do not account for the major decrease in sales likely to occur
should the tax hike become a reality. It is silly to think that cigarette
sales will remain the same if Missouri smokers are required to spend
$14.60 more per carton of cigarettes. Remember, when you tax
something, sales will decrease. Increasing a cigarette tax might result in
less smoking, but it will also drive down purchases of cigarettes.

Patrick Fleenor, former senior economist at the Tax Foundation,
provides a telling example: When Michigan increased its cigarette tax
rate from $2.50 to $7.50 per carton (25 cents to 75 cents per pack), sales
decreased 26.7 percent. During the same period, cigarette sales greatly
increased in Indiana and other neighboring states with lower cigarette tax
rates. Should Missouri follow in the footsteps of Michigan, convenience
stores in Atchison, Kan., are likely to become much more profitable and
Missouri will experience a loss of cigarette revenue because fewer
cigarette will be sold on the eastern side of the border.

Amy Lutz is an intern at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market
solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Why a Whopping Increase in Missouri’s Cigarette Tax Is a Bad Idea appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Although Koster says that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, he also says that it’s severable from the rest of the law. In other words, Koster believes that the federal health care law can remain in place even though the individual insurance mandate can be struck down.

Judge George Vinson went further in his ruling. He ruled that Congress does not have the power to force people to buy something that they don’t want, and therefore the entire law must be declared void.

I understand that many people object to the regulation because of the individual mandate. However, there are additional reasons to oppose this law in Missouri. With or without the individual mandate, the PPACA will raise the cost of health care in Missouri by increasing mandates to cover specific conditions and expanding the eligibility requirements for Medicaid. This component of policy will burden state budgets and threaten state sovereignty. In order to come up with the cash, Missouri will have to raise taxes, cut services, or both.

Koster’s decision to file an amicus brief may be partly due to the Show-Me Intitute’s prodding. Encouraging him to join the lawsuit is a topic that we’ve tracked closely. Show-Me Institute staff have released an open letter, an editorial, an “urgent call for action” via email, and several blog posts on the subject.

The post Attorney General Chris Koster’s Amicus Brief Only Goes Halfway appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Many attorneys general have provided direction in their own states, but this group does not include Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster. By keeping quiet on the issue of enforcing the federal health care law, Koster increases the uncertainty in Missouri to a level above that in other states, which hurts business development.

When the government enacts policies that extend its authority to new areas, such as the impending health care regulation, it creates an unknown environment. Economists call this, “regime uncertainty,” a concept developed by the economic historian Robert Higgs. Because the health care regulation is so complex and convoluted, members of the business community are left scratching their heads. Instead of growing their businesses, they will spend time and resources figuring out how to comply.

Regime uncertainty has real, immediate effects for economic activity. It leads businesses and individuals in the private sector to hesitate to make investments or hire additional people. Koster’s silence also makes it difficult for government agencies in Missouri to plan for the future. As officials develop budgets, they need to know whether and how to allocate resources to comply with the health care regulation. The operations of multiple state agencies in Missouri would be impacted by the potential invalidation of the health care law.

Many experts expect that the question of whether the health care regulation is constitutional will go all the way to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, Missouri is in a state of limbo. Regardless of whether a higher court overturns the law in the future, businesses, lawmakers, and individuals in Missouri need to know how to act in the present. Do they need to adhere to the federal health care regulation, or don’t they? As the Republican leadership recently posited, “Must state officials follow its unconstitutional dictates, or should we ignore them as we see the top officials of other states doing?”

Koster didn’t sign onto the multistate lawsuit in Florida, despite having ample opportunity, along with resolutions from the state legislature, the will of the electorate, and his fiduciary duty to consider. The 26 attorneys general who signed onto the lawsuit in Florida have demonstrated that they find the federal takeover of health care to be unconstitutional. Missourians are left to wonder, what does Koster’s hesitation indicate? Does he support the lawsuit or oppose it?

What do we do now, Mr. Koster?

Christine Harbin is a policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Missouri: A State of Uncertainty on Health Care Regulation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Twenty-six states were party to the lawsuit, but Missouri was not among them. Even though Missourians signaled their overwhelming opposition to the health care regulation by passing Proposition C, Missouri’s attorney general, Chris Koster, didn’t jump on board.

This ruling is good news for Missourians. If the Supreme Court upholds this ruling, Congress will not be able to force people to buy something that they don’t want.

Hopefully, this foreshadows success for Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder’s own lawsuit challenging the health care reform law. So far, two federal judges have upheld the law, but two have ruled that it is unconstitutional (a lawsuit in Virginia, and now this multistate lawsuit in Florida).

We have followed the Florida lawsuit very closely at the Show-Me Institute, and we will continue to track it as it progresses through the courts.

The full text of the Florida ruling is available online.

The post Judge in Florida Overturns Federal Health Care Law appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Acknowledging the will of the state legislature, a vote by the people, and his fiduciary duty, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster inched closer to challenging the constitutionality of the federal health care law.

“We haven’t finally formulated what the plans are,” said Koster, following a question by Missouri Watchdog about his plans regarding the health care law during a press conference Tuesday in St. Louis.

Twenty-six states have already joined. Why hasn’t Missouri yet? What’s the delay?

The post Missouri’s Attorney General Is Still Not Yet On Board Florida Lawsuit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is an issue that we have been tracking very closely at the Show-Me Institute.

Critics argue that joining the lawsuit will be a waste of time and money for Missouri. This argument is not factually true; Missouri will incur few costs by joining. If Koster decided to join the lawsuit, the only cost for the taxpayers of Missouri would be the time it takes for somebody in the attorney general’s office to write the letter, along with the price of a postage stamp — if that.

Although states are free to help offset the costs of the lawsuit, it is completely voluntary. Furthermore, the maximum amount that they may contribute is $5,000. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, there are 5,988,927 individuals living in Missouri. If they were to split this sum equally, each person would pay less than nine hundredths of one cent to fund Missouri’s contribution to the lawsuit. That’s 9 cents for every 100 residents. Decrying the cost of the lawsuit is a smokescreen argument.

Koster would be wise to free-ride on the Florida lawsuit. Missourians have nothing to lose by joining the lawsuit, but they have much to gain, such as freedom in their health care decisions.

The post Florida Deadline Comes and Goes; Missouri’s Attorney General Is Not Yet On Board appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Encouraging Attorney General Chris Koster to join the lawsuit is a topic that we’ve been tracking closely at the Show-Me Institute. Executive Director Brenda Talent released an open letter to the attorney general on Thursday. I discussed the topic in an editorial that published in the Springfield News-Leader, on the Mike Ferguson show on the Eagle 93.9 FM in Columbia, and in some posts on the blog. The Show-Me Institute also released an “urgent call for action” via email last week.

With the passage of Proposition C, Missouri voters were the first to oppose this attempt by the federal government to take control over health care, and they deserve to have an attorney general that listens to them. The precedent that Missourians set by approving Proposition C could be continued if Koster joins the lawsuit. The fact that the Missouri House has passed a resolution is another signal that Missourians oppose the health care law.

Other states have recently jumped on board, including Wisconsin, Ohio, Wyoming, and Kansas. There’s no compelling reason why Missouri should not be on the list.

The post Missouri House Passed Resolution Encouraging Koster to Join Lawsuit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When Missourians passed Proposition C last August with more than 71 percent of the vote, they signaled opposition to the individual health insurance mandate that is central to the federal health care reform law adopted by Congress earlier this year. Policymakers in Missouri should take steps to represent their constituency’s resounding opposition to the measure. Missouri’s attorney general, Chris Koster, has the opportunity to do just that by joining 20 other states in a Florida lawsuit against Obamacare. Governors and attorneys general who decide to participate have until January 10 to join the suit.

There are many reasons why Missouri should join the health care reform lawsuit. The individual mandate requiring Americans to carry insurance overreaches the federal government’s authority under the Constitution’s commerce clause. Health care is just one among the many goods and services that individuals in Missouri consume, and courts have never interpreted the commerce clause as giving lawmakers the authority to require individuals to purchase a product.

The case that’s being heard in Florida is one of the few among the two dozen pending challenges to the new health care reform law that also contests the law’s expansion of eligibility requirements for Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor. Expanding Medicaid would burden the state budget, and may exacerbate the existing deficit. Lawmakers in Missouri have already made cuts to education and public safety, and other cuts to essential services — or increased taxes — could be necessary if the Medicaid program were expanded.

Medicaid is already one of the largest expenses in Missouri’s budget, and the new health care law depends on an expansion of Medicaid for its projected increase in insurance coverage. In fiscal year 2008, Medicaid spending in Missouri totaled more than $7.09 billion. The federal government pays for the majority of the expenditures, but Missouri taxpayers covered $2.66 billion, or more than 12.5 percent, of the state’s total $21.2 billion budget. Although the law initially requires the federal government to absorb the full cost of the expansion, states could eventually pay 10 percent.

The states that are party to the health care reform lawsuit argue that the law impinges on state sovereignty by requiring the use of state funds to cover a much larger share of low-income people through Medicaid. Not only does it undermine state autonomy, it is also unnecessary.

There are alternative ways to provide health care to uninsured and low-income populations without restricting individual liberties and freedom of choice. When the government allows more competition and choice in insurance markets, people can better choose how to balance cost with their own relative tolerance for risk. One successful strategy would be to eliminate the way in which insurance is tied to employment, and instead encourage health savings accounts (HSAs), which would allow individuals to purchase portable, cost-effective policies, save for foreseeable health-related expenses, and hedging against unknown future risk.

Top-down, centralized plans can’t take into account the many varied needs and preferences of the hundreds of millions of people such plans will inevitably affect. By signing on to this Florida lawsuit, Attorney General Koster can help signal that Missourians are capable of making their own health insurance decisions without an intrusive federal mandate.

Christine Harbin is a policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Missouri’s Attorney General Should Join Health Care Reform Lawsuit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I hope the SNL editors research and footnote the types of benefits offered to the Show-Me Institute’s employees, if any, and that Harbin discloses her participation, if any, in them. My guess is that she would refuse to disclose which benefits she receives, much like the GOP Congress refused to do this week.

The commenter guessed incorrectly. Even though I don’t consider it to be relevant to my argument, nor do I consider it to be the responsibility of the Springfield News-Leader to investigate it before running an editorial, I’m happy to clarify the health care benefits that I enjoy. This is no secret — it’s something that I mentioned yesterday when I was talking about health care policy on the Mike Ferguson show on the Eagle 93.9 FM in Columbia. It’s a characteristic of my generation — we tend to be very willing to disclose details of our finances.

I have a health savings account (HSA) and a health insurance policy with a $5,000 deductible. My monthly premium, which I pay out of pocket, is around $100, which is manageable. I work at the Show-Me Institute because I am committed to the ideas of liberty and individual responsibility — certainly not because I receive a lucrative benefits package, because I don’t. If I simply wanted a fat paycheck, I would get a job in the private sector or become a school superintendent.

Insurance policies are not one-size-fits-all, particularly in health care. Although high deductible insurance plans and HSAs work very well for healthy 20-somethings like John Payne and me, I’ll readily admit that it is not something that works best for everybody. However, a plan that works best for everybody doesn’t exist. A so-called Cadillac insurance plan with a low deductible, for instance, would be a poor fit for me at this time in my life. This is precisely why health care should remain in the free market — it preserves consumer choice and ensures that individuals can select the policies that fit their needs. We can see that when the government increases the number of mandates, the cost of coverage rises.

Show-Me Institute staff and scholars have highlighted the advantages of HSAs previously. As one particular benefit, my policy is portable (i.e., it’s not tied to my employer). Therefore, if I were to leave the Show-Me Institute, my health care coverage would be unaffected. From my perspective as a young person, an additional benefit of an HSA is that it serves as a tax-sheltered savings account. Unlike flexible savings accounts, which expire every Dec. 31, the money that I put into my HSA rolls over each year. Furthermore, if I don’t spend the money in my account by age 65, I can withdraw it without penalty like I would with a traditional IRA.

The bottom line is that it is important to preserve choice in health care. Overall welfare would decrease if families and individuals weren’t free to choose the policies that best fit their particular lifestyles and budget constraints.

The post Hello, My Name Is Christine and I Have a Health Savings Account appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Dear Atty. Gen. Koster:

To date, 20 out of the 50 states have joined a multi-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the recent federal health care reform law. That case, Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. 3:10-CV-19-RV/EMT, is currently pending before U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson. Other states are expected to join the lawsuit by Jan. 10.

The law at issue is defective on its merits; it raises the cost of health care, intrudes into decisions that should be reserved to individuals and businesses, limits the availability of health insurance, and increases the deficit at a time when the federal debt is already threatening the solvency of the nation. But I urge you to join the lawsuit because of grave concerns over the constitutionality of the law and, in particular, of the individual health insurance mandate.

The individual mandate requiring Americans to carry insurance overreaches the federal government’s authority under the Constitution’s commerce clause. Health care is just one among many goods and services that individuals in Missouri purchase, and courts have never interpreted the commerce clause as giving the federal government the power to require individuals to purchase a product. To put it simply, a person’s decision not to buy health insurance is not an act of “commerce.” If the commerce clause justifies this kind of intrusion, there is literally no limit to the power of the federal government over the lives and freedom of the American people.

Missouri voters understand the constitutional infirmity of the health care law. When they passed Proposition C last August with more than 71 percent of the vote, they signaled strong opposition to the individual mandate. In view of this expression of the popular will, and the implications of this expansion of federal power, I urge you to join the states that have filed this constitutional challenge in an effort to protect the liberty of their citizens.

Most respectfully,

Brenda Talent
Executive Director, Show-Me Institute

Related Links

The post An Open Letter to Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Currently, a bipartisan group of more than 20 state attorneys general and elected officials are asking a judge in Florida to invalidate the federal health care reform law. Missourians should encourage their attorney general, Chris Koster, to join this multistate lawsuit, which resumes on Jan. 10. In my view, the precedent that Missourians set by approving Proposition C could be continued if Attorney General Chris Koster joined the lawsuit.

The following are some facts related to the lawsuit:

• Twenty attorneys general are challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health care reform law that Congress passed earlier this year, in a courtroom in Pensacola, Fla. They are arguing that the law is unconstitutional and would set a dangerous precedent.
• The case involves two arguments. The first is that the requirement for all Americans to purchase insurance is unconstitutional. The second is that expanding the eligibility requirements for Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor, threatens state sovereignty and will burden state budgets.
• The states party to the suit are Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Alaska. Additional states, such as Wisconsin, are considering joining.
• Americans are divided in their support for the health care legislation. Only 42 percent of Americans say they have a generally favorable view of the law, while 41 percent say the opposite, according to a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation in December 2010.

Missouri voters were the first to oppose this attempt by the federal government to take control over health care. As Missourians, we live in a democracy. We should have a government that represents the demonstrated wishes of Missourians in this matter, thereby advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for health care policy.

I will discuss the effort to encourage Attorney General Koster to join the Florida lawsuit on the Mike Ferguson show on the Eagle 93.9 FM tomorrow, Jan. 6 at 5:00 p.m in Columbia. I encourage our readers to tune in or listen online.

The post Attorney General Chris Koster Should Join the Multistate Health Care Lawsuit in Florida appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Gosh, it was only a year ago when U.S. senators and representatives were debating provisions of a large-scale, mostly unread health care bill. One of the biggest issues at the time prompting the discussion of health care policy was the concern that U.S. health care costs are rapidly increasing, for both the government and the private sector.

Nixon’s proposal flies in the face of previous and current attempts to decrease health care costs. Requiring residents to see a doctor to obtain a prescription for, say, Sudafed vastly increases the cost for both individuals and health insurers.

For example, if I am sick tomorrow and need nasal decongestant, I will head to the nearest Walgreens and pick up the generic version of Sudafed for about $5. The entire process will take me less than 15 minutes. However, if I am sick in the future and the prescription requirement has been implemented, the additional cost to obtain medicine will include a visit to my doctor. The monetary cost to me could still be relatively low, if I have a low co-pay, but if I am uninsured, have a high co-pay, or a high-deductible health insurance policy, I may have to pay a great deal more. Meanwhile, my health insurance provider will pay whatever cost that I don’t, resulting in — all else being equal — higher health insurance premiums. All for the privilege of seeing a doctor. Because the state says so.

Now, I know that some, including the governor and Attorney General Chris Koster, will argue that these increased costs are worth it if meth-related accidents decrease. But this ignores that a number of other state laws have already been implemented specifically to eliminate meth production (and access to decongestant). The governor, in his press release, enumerates other restrictions already in place:

By law, pseudoephedrine must now be sold behind a pharmacy counter and buyers are limited to purchasing no more than 3.6 grams, or 120 standard tablets in a 24 hour period, and 9 grams, or 300 standard tablets, in a 30-day period. On Sept. 28, a new state rule took effect, giving authority to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) to work with law enforcement and pharmacies on a new database that automatically blocks over the limit sales of pseudoephedrine and allows law enforcement agencies to track pseudoephedrine purchases in real time.

So, Missouri government already limits the purchase of pseudoephedrine, restricts where it can be sold, and tracks those who purchase the drug. What else can the state do, short of making nasal decongestant illegal?

In fact, a good example of these policies at work can be found in Oregon, one of two states that have enacted prescription requirements for pseudoephedrine. According to Oregon’s Narcotics Enforcement Association, in late 2004, the state began requiring photo identification from purchasers of medicine containing pseudoephedrine, and the state required that those medicines be sold behind the counter. In 2005, the state tightened these restrictions, requiring the medicines to be sold behind pharmacy counters, and began tracking purchasers of the medicines. Those restrictions led to a dramatic decrease in the annual number of “meth lab incidents.”

In 2004, Oregon reported 448 meth lab incidents. In 2006, the count was down to 63.

But that wasn’t low enough for Oregon. In July 2006, a new rule was set: Medicines containing pseudoephedrine could only be purchased with a prescription. And that odious requirement, which almost certainly has pushed up health care costs in Oregon, appears to have resulted in the elimination of roughly 40 meth incidents per year (Oregon now has about 20 each year).

There are a few things I don’t know, but suspect may be at work. First, how do we know that Oregon’s policies have stamped out dangerous drug-related incidents? It may be that Oregon’s pseudoephedrine restrictions have merely encouraged meth producers to produce different illegal drugs instead. Furthermore, these numbers are for recent years. In the future, meth producers may figure out a way of acquiring pseudoephedrine that will bypass the restrictions.

All the while, more Oregonians have to go to the doctor in order to obtain cold medicine. Is the cost of their time and the resulting increase in health care costs worth it? I don’t think so.

Rapidly increasing health care costs are not a new problem. From our most recent three U.S. presidents:

Former President Bill Clinton:

Small businesses will continue to face skyrocketing premiums and a full third of small businesses now covering their employees say they will be forced to drop their insurance. Large corporations will bear bigger disadvantages in global competition, and health care costs will devour more and more and more of our budget.

Former President George W. Bush:

We share a common goal: making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans. The best way to achieve that goal is by expanding consumer choice, not government control.

President Barack Obama:

Then there’s the problem of rising cost. We spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It’s why so many employers — especially small businesses — are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely.

Regulations and restrictions like the prescription requirement proposed are certainly part of the health care cost problem. I hope Missouri’s governor will realize that, and withdraw his proposal.

The post Well, That’s One Way to Increase Health Care Costs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last session, bills were put forth to require law enforcement agencies to ask the citizenship status of anyone they arrest. Another bill would have placed a number regulations into the books, including a ban on renting to illegal immigrations. Neither bill passed this session.

That’s from the Columbia Daily Tribune Politics Blog, which also reprints an essay by Rod Jetton about illegal immigration.

I see two problems with these laws. First, they would waste the time of law enforcement officers, who should use their discretion about when these inquiries would be appropriate. Second, they waste the time of the rest of us, who would have to put every transaction or business decision on hold while we determine the immigration status of all people involved.

I’m all for enforcing laws — if the executive branch can do the job.

The post Civics 101 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.