During the historic first meeting of the GOP-led Senate, lawmakers approved limits on how to consider bills expanding insurance coverage for certain ailments.
Featured Gallery
Advertisement
Senators held an organizational meeting Tuesday to elect officers and approve updated rules. Republicans flexed their majority muscle by voting along party lines to shoot down 10 amendments Democrats made to Senate rules. The rules will govern Senate procedure when the regular legislative session begins Feb. 2.
Under the new rules, legislation that expands insurance coverage to state employees by a state agency must include information about the fiscal impact. Without the financial information, the measure won’t be heard.
"We have a lot of responsibility,” said Majority Floor Leader Sen. Todd Lamb, R-Edmond. "Part of that responsibility is fiscal responsibility. To have checks and balances is an important part of that fiscal responsibility. To ask for fiscal impact study to be conducted on any mandate, that’s a wise policy.”
The provision would affect attempts to increase insurance coverage like changes proposed last session by Sen. Jay Paul Gumm, D-Durant, in Nick’s Law. Last session, Nick’s Law, which would have increased coverage for children with autism, had support in the Senate but died in the House.
"We’re not going to get to have that debate because of rules adopted here,” Gumm said. "I don’t care if I lose in a straight up or down vote. Those of us who have been fighting for Nick’s Law, we understand that. But don’t hide behind a set of cowardly rules.”
Other views
Some Democrats questioned protections given to the insurance industry and not to all agencies, or sectors where policy could have a fiscal impact.
"I just don’t understand why we want to offer privileged status to insurance companies,” said Sen. Tom Adelson, D-Tulsa. "It gives the image that the Senate is in the pocket of the insurance industry. I don’t think that’s the image any of us want.”
Lamb said moves that could cost taxpayers and policy holders more money should be scrutinized.
"We take very seriously the business of expending dollars — be they public or private dollars — and their impact on the people who put us in this position, the citizens of our state,” Lamb said.
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
I find it (almost) amusing that these grown men are so afraid of losing their most important constituent (big insurance) that they actually have to change the rules so little boys and girls suffering from the number 1 medical condition (autism) in our country won't receive insurance coverage. If it weren't so pathetic and mean, it would almost be amusing. I have yet to find one person who will tell me face to face that they do not want Nick’s Law to pass. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, university professors..all agree this is the ‘right thing to do’. The only people who oppose Nick’s Law are those that hide behind screen names and don’t have the courage to tell me in person that they disagree with this legislation. It appears the only people in the state who don’t want this legislation to pass are those who benefit from Nick’s Law not passing, the insurance companies and our Republican legislators. I make this statement as a lifelong republican. Shame on those of you, who refuse to do ‘the right thing’. Robyne Rohde, Mommy to Austin and Nicholas (Nick's Law)
1
Featured Gallery
Prev
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).