Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2007 Senate Bill 420: Create state catastrophic health insurance plan for public employers
Public Act 108 of 2007
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Patricia Birkholz (R) on April 19, 2007, to amend the law that authorizes municipalities to provide health insurance benefits so it references the regulations proposed by Senate Bill 418, which would create a voluntary state-sponsored catastrophic “stop loss” coverage health insurance plan that municipalities could join.
- Referred to the Senate Local, Urban, & State Affairs Committee on April 19, 2007.
- Reported in the Senate on May 24, 2007, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Referred to the Senate Local, Urban, & State Affairs Committee on April 19, 2007.
- Passed 21 to 17 in the Senate on September 4, 2007, to amend the law that authorizes municipalities to provide health insurance benefits so it references the regulations proposed by Senate Bill 418, which would allow schools and local governments to form health insurance purchasing pools that municipalities could join, and prescribes standards and regulations for these.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on September 5, 2007.
- Referred to the House Education Committee on September 5, 2007.
- Reported in the House on September 11, 2007, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tim Melton (D) on September 11, 2007, to tie-bar the bill to Senate Bill 549, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. SB 549 would require all regular school districts within an Intermediate School District to adopt a common school calendar. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on September 11, 2007.
- Referred to the House Education Committee on September 5, 2007.
- Passed 68 to 38 in the House on September 11, 2007, to amend the law that authorizes municipalities to provide health insurance benefits so it references the regulations proposed by Senate Bill 418, which would allow schools and local governments to form health insurance purchasing pools that municipalities could join, and prescribes standards and regulations for these.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on September 12, 2007.
- Passed 23 to 15 in the Senate on September 30, 2007, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on October 1, 2007.
Most Recent Comments
1) "no vote explanation of" by Admin003 on September 13, 2007Rep. Knollenberg, having reserved his right to explain his protest against the passage of Senate Bill Nos. 418, 419, 420 and 421, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
The intent of this package of bills was to increase competition and lower healthcare insurance rates for our public employees. The bills accomplished this goal when they came over from the Senate. However, as amended in Committee today, these bills are gutted.
The question must be asked, why? Why are we destroying legislation designed to save our school districts much needed money? Why are the only two groups opposed to the Senate bill Sponsor's intentions the MEA and MESSA? And why are we pandering to these special interest groups when testimony clearly showed that the Senate passed version of these bills would provide much needed additional options for our struggling rates.
We have an opportunity here today to make some real reform and provide an option to our school districts to save some real money without reducing benefits. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this substitute because of the changes made in Committee today which remove some of the competitive incentives and restricts pooling options. Let's get this right while we have the opportunity. I would respectfully urge a no vote."
Reply
ALL taxpayers are forced to pay the bill for public employee's AND their families health care, vision, dental and prescription drug coverage. Many of us can't afford our own, or can only afford catastrophic coverage. Is this FAIR???????????????????????
Reply
Reps. Marleau and Meltzer, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
These bills, in their original form, would have increased competition and lowered healthcare insurance rates for our public employees. The bills would have saved schools and the state money without diminishing the quality of health care coverage. Unfortunately, the bills were gutted in committee and can no longer be considered a reform.
As amended in committee, these bills lack competitive incentives and put too many restrictions on school administrators trying to put money into the classroom. Powerful special interests were successful in their efforts to undermine the bill sponsor's intent.
We had an opportunity today to make some real reforms and provide our school districts and the state options to save money without reducing employee health benefits. I will continue working for meaningful reforms that will allow school districts and the state to save money while still providing high quality heath care."
Reply
View Full Conversation
