As President Obama prepares to defend the Affordable Care Act in tonight’s State of the Union address, a bipartisan group of senators have reintroduced two separate bills to repeal a portion of the law. Both measures seek to eliminate a requirement that businesses fill out a 1099 tax form for purchases over $600:

- SEN. MIKE JOHANNS’ (R-NE) BILL 52 CO-SPONSORS, 12 DEMS: The bill would repeal the reporting requirement and would pay for the loss in revenue by directing Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to identify $39 billion in unspent and obligated accounts. In November, the bill failed 61 to 35, but 21 Democratic voted for the measure.

- SEN. MAX BAUCUS’ (D-MT) BILL CO-SPONSORED WITH REID: The bill would repeal the reporting requirement, without making up the $17 billion in lost revenues.

Both sides have played politics with the issue, although everyone — including Obama — agrees that the measure would present a serious paperwork burden to employers were it to go into effect in 2012. But at the end of last year, Republicans twice objected to attaching a repeal measure to the tax compromise and Democrats have failed to come up with an alternative way to pay for repeal.

Johanns’ measure has its problems, but it’s not clear what Democrats stand to gain by drawing out the debate — if they want to produce their own repeal alternative, then they best find some way to pay for it. One thing worth highlighting, however, is that Johanns is asking the OMB to identify $39 billion in savings while the revenue lost from eliminating the 1099 requirement is just $17 billion. He pays for it and then some.

The 1099 provision was originally designed to bolster the tax compliance of sole proprietors and pay for the coverage expansion in the law.

The House Education and Workforce Committee (one of the committees responsible for designing bipartisan alternatives to the Affordable Care Act) held its first organizational meeting today to approve committee rules and procedures. The 17 Democrats on the panel also offered a preview into how they plan to combat GOP efforts to undermine the gains of the reform act, offering two amendments aimed at preserving health reform’s most popular provisions and the increased government investment in Pell Grant scholarships. Below is the text of the health amendment offered by Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ):

(1) the right of young adults under 26 to stay on their parents’ health plan; (2) the prohibition on health insurance issuers and group health plans against imposing annual and lifetime limits; (3) the prohibition on health insurance issuers and group health plans against rescinding an individual’s health coverage due to illness; (4) the prohibition on health insurance issuers or group health plans against denying coverage to or otherwise discriminating against individuals due to a pre-existing condition; or (5) the deficit savings of $230,000,000,000 during the 10-year period beginning after fiscal year 2011 that was achieved through the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2011

All the Republicans voted down both amendments without discussing their contents or explaining why they disagreed with these priorities, striking a new tone in the post-repeal Congress.

Throughout last week’s repeal debate on the House floor, many Republicans hinted that they supported the aforementioned provisions but sought to repeal the entire law so they could start over in a more bipartisan fashion. They touted the Republican 2009 health care proposal (which includes the first three proposals and even offers a variation of the fourth) and hinted that they would include patient protections in a package of alternatives. Of course, failing to incorporate protections in the rules doesn’t prohibit Republicans from adding them into the alternative legislation, but today’s party-line rejection of two Democratic proposals certainly doesn’t bode well for the promised bipartisanship of the process or the priorities of the final replacement bill (should the committee ever produce one).

David Leonhardt points to this fascinating new report from the National Academy of Sciences which finds that smoking, obesity rates and lack of equitable access to health insurance coverage are literally killing Americans:

Over the last 25 years, life expectancy at age 50 in the U.S. has been rising, but at a slower pace than in many other high-income countries, such as Japan and Australia. This difference is particularly notable given that the U.S. spends more on health care than any other nation….

Three to five decades ago, smoking was much more widespread in the U.S. than in Europe or Japan, and the health consequences are still playing out in today’s mortality rates, the report says. Smoking appears to be responsible for a good deal of the differences in life expectancy, especially for women….

Obesity’s contribution to lagging life expectancies in the U.S. also appears to be significant, the report says. While there is still uncertainty in the literature about the magnitude of the relationship between obesity and mortality, it may account for a fifth to a third of the shortfall in longevity in the U.S. compared to other nations, the report says….

Lack of universal access to health care in the U.S. also has increased mortality and reduced life expectancy, the report says, though this is a less significant factor for those over age 65 because of Medicare access….

Since repealing health reform is the number one agenda item for Republicans in Congress — just today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that he would pressure Democrats to hold a repeal vote in the Senate — I don’t see why Democrats don’t argue that taking away insurance from 32 million Americans will lower U.S. life expectancy. After all, actions have consequences and if Republicans want to push through repeal, then they should be held accountable for their vote. (Notably, they’ve also been dismissive of Obama’s anti-obesity campaign.)

This kind of language generally makes people feel very uncomfortable (especially after the Tuscon tragedy) and some will find equivalency between the GOP’s lines about “job killing” and “death panels” and the approach I’m suggesting. But the difference is that — as this report suggests — the argument that uninsurance kills people is actually true.

Yesterday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called on newly-minted Governor Mark Dayton (D) to cancel an expansion of Medicaid for some 95,000 Minnesotans, for fear that it would commit the state to fully implementing the Affordable Care Act. Dayton recently signed an executive order taking advantage of a provision in the law that allows states to expand the program before 2014, bringing in an estimated $1.3 billion to the state.

Bachmann urged Dayton to rescind the order without offering any plan for how to extend coverage to the 95,000 Minnesotans who would benefit from the expansion:

“All across the country we’re seeing that ObamaCare is driving up healthcare costs. Insurance premiums are rising. Bureaucrats are starting a process that will expand the list of minimum benefits insurance companies must offer. That will raise the price of health insurance and take away consumer choice.

“Serious steps are being taken to stop this job-destroying legislation that will cause healthcare costs to rise exponentially. Yet here in Minnesota, Governor Dayton is unyielding in his desire to fully commit our state to it.

“We are here this morning to call on the Governor to change course.

“If Governor Dayton truly believes that cutting spending and shrinking the size of government are complex issues, then how can he not at least withdraw his Executive Order [that will expand medical assistance, ensnare the state in ObamaCare, and cost Minnesotans millions of dollars], sit down with these lawmakers, and work on the kind of bipartisan healthcare solutions that will not add to our state’s $6 billion deficit.”

This best illustrates the difference between someone who is truly interested in addressing the access problems facing the states and Bachmann, who as the Governor suggested, is “playing presidential politics with the citizens of our state.” Now, to be sure, many governors may be troubled by the scale of Medicaid enrollment increases, but these are concerns that can all be addressed. The bottom line is that over the short term — especially until 2016 — the Medicaid expansion provisions provide states with a lot of extra cash, insure more residents and consequently allow states to reduce payments they make to support uncompensated care costs. (The federal government picks up the entire tab of Medicaid expansion until 2016 and pays for 95% of the expansion in 2017, 94% in 2018, and 93% in 2019. Beginning in 2020, it will fund 90% of the expansion).

As a governor who wants to actually resolve the health care problem rather than bloviate about it, Dayton would be foolish not to take advantage of these provisions. Minnesota will be able to cover a large number of residents at little direct cost (a Kaiser Family Foundation report estimates that the federal government will pick up 95% of the cost of the expansion) and that’s an infinitesimally better proposition than Bachmann’s non-existent solution to the uninsurance problem.