A Missouri lawmaker last week pre-filed a bill that could revoke the licenses of insurers who offer plans through the Affordable Care Act, directly undermining the federal health law and making affordable health insurance more difficult to find for many Missourians.

The bill, SB 51, expands on Missouri’s Health Care Freedom Act, which says residents of the Show-Me State are not compelled to purchase health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, in contradiction to the federal law’s insurance mandate that was upheld by the Supreme Court.

The proposed effort to undercut the success of President Obama’s health-care program comes from a conservative guide detailing ways in which Republican-dominated state legislatures can effectively stop the ACA from expanding health-care access.

“Missourians spoke loudly against Obamacare with 71 percent voting in favor of the Health Care Freedom Act in 2010 and a majority voting to not allow the Governor to establish a state exchange in 2012,” said Senator-elect Bob Onder (R), who pre-filed SB 51 early last week.

Onder’s bill not only reiterates that Missourians don’t have to abide by the federal insurance mandate law, but also seeks to add a more extreme amendment to the 2010 act: It would effectively enable the state to revoke the license of a health insurance company that participates in the ACA’s insurance exchanges set up to make buying insurance easier for consumers.

Under the Affordable Care Act, those ineligible for Medicaid but who can’t afford to pay the full price for a private health plan can often receive government subsidies to help pay for premiums and other out-of-pocket costs. Recipients of those subsidies could trigger penalties for their employers, however, if that employer was obligated by law to offer employee health insurance but didn’t.

SB 51 would change that by prohibiting insurers from accepting “any remuneration [government subsidy money] that may result in the imposition of penalties.” In other words, the law would outlaw the acceptance of subsidies from the government that would result in penalties on employers. Insurers who violate the bill would have their license suspended until it has “returned the remuneration to its source and will decline any further remuneration.”

As Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress notes, the Missouri bill likely would not be implemented since federal law overrides state law. And in this case, federal law requires that both state-run and federally-run insurance exchanges include cost-sharing options in the way of government subsidies.

A lawsuit seeking to change the way subsidies are handed out could affect whether SB 51 is implemented, if it’s passed at all.

The lawsuit, King v. Burwell, which was this year picked up by the Supreme Court, argues that only state-run insurance exchanges can offer health care subsidies, not federally-run exchanges. If the conservative Roberts Court upholds that law, states like Missouri, with no state-run exchange, would not be compelled to provide subsidies, and any insurer seeking subsidies would be doing so under no obligation from federal law.

Onder is just one Republican midterm election victor who has challenged the Affordable Care Act, and conservatives across the country have made it a priority to effectively repeal the federal health law, despite the widespread popularity of its central features.

Iowa Senator-elect Joni Ernst for example, has said she would support a law allowing “local law enforcement to arrest federal officials attempting to implement” Obamacare, and has also advocated the radical “nullification” theory charging that states should ignore federal laws.