No sh!t? Now, that's my type of representation. Best be paying attention Moolenaar and Pettalia.
Awesome.
Protests
Senators Colbeck, Kowall, Schuitmaker, Robertson, Moolenaar and Proos, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 693.
Senator Colbeck moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting "no."
The motion prevailed.
Senator Colbeck's statement, in which Senators Kowall, Schuitmaker, Robertson, Moolenaar and Proos concurred, is as follows:
I rise in strong opposition to Senate Bill No. 693. My original cosponsor commitment was predicated on the understanding that this bill would provide a free-market alternative to the Affordable Care Act. As a co‑sponsor, I have worked hard to ensure that this bill would live up to this promise.
My concerns have not been addressed in this version of the bill, and I have read it thoroughly. Rather than serving as a free-market alternative, I have come to the conclusion that this bill would simply further enable the implementation of the federal Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.
I have worked hard to earn a reputation in my short tenure for not simply saying "no" to legislation that fixes real problems. I have worked hard to provide alternative solutions. Such is the case in Senate Bill No. 693. Our citizens do need access to affordable health care. Our state would have more jobs if we implemented a health care system that provided lower cost and higher-quality care for our citizens rather than the citizens in other states. I regret to say that this bill does not provide an effective solution to these very real needs that is consistent with the free market principles that made us a great nation.
I would liked to have had time to submit a vetted substitute that would have addressed the concerns that myself and others who believe that the government should establish a single exclusive marketplace for private health care plans, but the timeline procedure did not allow for such a proposal in the Senate. My alternative solution would rein in the scope of the exchange to focus on the determination of eligibility for government assistance to citizens and the definition of data exchange standards that would enable private exchanges to provide consumers with apples-to-apples comparisons of health policies.
Instead, we have before us a bill that creates a Michigan health marketplace that performs all exchange duties and a bill with no definition of what an exchange is. It also performs a certification of private health care plans. It provides plan enrollment, plan purchasing, grants for navigators that threaten traditional insurance broker roles, and call centers to direct consumers to government ombudsmen. By serving as a middle man for financial transactions, I am concerned that the exchange may actually increase insurance costs because of the potentially significant payment delay to insurance providers.
In short, I have no confidence that this bill will yield a free-market solution. The Michigan health marketplace would be a nonprofit organization that is a product of our state and federal government with overarching control of health care delivery within our state. A free-market solution which focuses government organization on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of government programs, such as Medicaid, Medicare, and VA services, and leave the comparison, enrollment, and purchase of private health insurance options to private vendors, including private exchanges.
The majority of us were elected on the platform that included fighting the federal Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare. Make no mistake, colleagues, a "yes" vote on this bill, as currently drafted, is a "yes" vote to support it.
Obviously there are 12 Senate Republicans that did understand and remember November 2010. Thank you.
These pr!cks however...
