Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on April 19, 2007, to amend the law that authorizes school districts 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, and prescribes standards and regulations for these

The vote was 21 in favor, 17 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 296 at Senate Journal 81)

Click here to view bill details.

Rep. Shaffer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: SB 418, in its original form, would have increased competition and lowered healthcare insurance rates for our public employees. The bill would have saved schools and the state money without diminishing the quality of health care coverage. Unfortunately, SB 418 was gutted in committee and can no longer be considered a reform bill. As amended in committee, this bill lacks competitive incentives and restricts pooling options. 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."

Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: SB 418,419,420,421 in its original form, would have increased competition and lowered healthcare insurance rates for our public employees. The bill would have saved schools and the state money without diminishing the quality of health care coverage. Unfortunately, these SB bills were gutted in committee and can no longer be considered a reform bill. As amended in committee, this bill lacks competitive incentives and restricts pooling options. 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."

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."

Rep. 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."

fJ0FX1 Cool, bro!