House Insurance & Commerce Committee
Video
Transcript
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 5, 2026
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
0:00
...pay for this bill. House Bill 1841 is an act to amend the law concerning pawnbrokers, precious metal dealer licensing,
and the purchase of gold, silver, and other precious metals. I'm privileged today to have with me Lieutenant Corrigentri from the State Police and Mr. Tim Collier representing the Pawn Brokers Association.
And if possible, if permissible, I'm going to yield
the microphone to them and let them help explain the purpose
Speaker 5
0:38
behind this bill. Good morning. I'm Lieutenant Cora Gentry with the Arkansas State Police. One thing the State Police does is it licenses what's called a precious metals dealer, which are the people that come in and buy gold and silver, things like that. We've had this responsibility since 1984, And what we're trying to do is do away with the fee that these people pay to us to register
and have them register with local law enforcement, report to local law enforcement, because the purpose of the original bill was if things are stolen in a burglary, that local law enforcement needs to know if it's pawned or sold to someone. So what we're trying to do is have pawnbrokers be the same as the precious metals dealers. So that's what this bill does, and it does away with a fee. Thank you so much. Any questions from the committee? Anybody want to
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:24
speak for or against the bill? It was the pleasure of the committee.
What's in the right? Okay. All right. All in favor? Let me know by saying aye. Opposed? Congratulations. You passed
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:41
the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and committee for the privilege. I
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:47
appreciate it. We're going to go to House Bill 2138. And I'm going to ask the vice chair to take over. I notice there are a lot of people here. There are several people that speak for and against the bill. I see my friend Dan Greenberg is here to speak against the bill.
So Mr. Vice Chair, recognize anyone except for Dan Greenberg. I don't know if that makes
Speaker 14
2:17
you a celebrity to be singled out quite that way but anyway everybody get their say Dan it's okay okay we're taking care of some paperwork up here folks
just bear with us while I got a moment I would appreciate courtesy from the audience to both sides of this issue and to keep your comments on the bill as well as if you're not testifying, we need to kind of keep focused on the people doing the testimony. We'd appreciate that courtesy.
Looks like, surprise, surprise, we've got an amendment to the bill. Right. We're passing that out now. Members, you'll take a look at that. Okay. In the meantime, in the interest of time, Representative Allen, you're recognized to
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
3:35
explain your amendment. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to call on the Insurance Commissioner, Mr. Bradford, to explain the amendment.
It's my understanding that they've been working through the night to try to satisfy both parties, and I'm going to allow him to explain the amendment.
Speaker 23
3:57
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a correct introduction.
Speaker 24
4:00
We have some concerns from members of the House about the function of the study of the exchange. As you all know, this is a federally funded project, and for it to go forward, we will have to apply for further funding.
But the concerns, and I would be nonpartisan, the concerns are on both sides, you know, that we are not going to take money, even though it is 100% federal money, and not use it appropriately. We all know from further testimony that the federal health and human services has given us the option to regulate the affordable health care plan, whatever ends up, it is in a state
of change, we know that, and it is appropriate to change it. So whatever ends up there, we would regulate the conduct of the agents, the solvency of the companies, the market conduct of the companies for Arkansans here. That's what we do now with the existing system. So with the new system, which the federal overrides, this gives us that ability to take care of Arkansans. Now, I'm going to ask John Morris, the general counsel, who worked on this amendment, and
have forwarded it out. I mean, this is our suggestion and the sponsor's suggestion to try to make everybody more comfortable with this process. And so, Ms. Morris, would you
Speaker 23
5:38
explain the amendment that's on the desk? MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. John Morris, General
John Morris
Unverified
5:45
Counsel with the Arkansas Insurance Department. The amendment does, as the Commissioner mentioned, it would have the effect of limiting the department and prohibiting it from being able to spend any
grant money which might be procured from now until November, with the exception of the grant money that has already been given to the department for planning, which was previously mentioned in the last committee meeting. So, again, if the Supreme Court acts quickly and rules it to be constitutional, then we would be able to use the grant money to help with our planning and implementation quicker.
The same provision of the amendment from last time would apply, though, in the event that the Supreme Court acts quickly and determines that the federal health reform is unconstitutional, then it all goes away. So it would have no effect on that part of it. Okay, members, any questions on the amendment? Mr. Biviano, you're
recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And so we
would just put this off until November, basically, is what you're saying?
John Morris
Unverified
7:14
That is the time, as the department sees it, as to when the existing grant money will be expended. Do we have a plan in place now to
say this amendment wasn't proposed and we were ready to pass it? Do we have a plan in place now to start even before November anyways? MR. Start
John Morris
Unverified
7:35
implementation? MR. Yeah. MR. The plan, we
are in a planning stage right now. It is the Department's belief that implementation does need to start at the beginning of next
year. MR. So we wouldn't be starting before November
John Morris
Unverified
7:53
anyways? MR. We would not start implementation before November. We would continue to be planning, though. MR. Thank
you. Representative Hyde, you're recognized to speak on the amendment or to ask a question
on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, or John, either one, so what you're telling me is that you've been working
and trying to work with those who have been opposed, and from those discussions, this This is the best thing you've been able to come up with, but you were unable to
Speaker 24
8:36
win their support. No, Representative Hyde, no one has rejected this amendment. This follows to a great degree suggestions that we would do. But we moved the date to that November date because if we didn't do that, if we happened
to get further funding for the study, we would be out of funds and we would have to dismantle it. And that, in effect, pulls the plug on our rights here to develop an exchange. So all we did basically was the suggestion we wait until January. Of course, you're going to get total control in that budget session and you should be. But that would have disrupted the process, the planning process, and we would have stopped
it and we would have to tell Health and Human Services we're through. And that would have been a waste, frankly, you know, to take this first money and then to pull a plug on it. I don't think people, business people, wouldn't want to do that. So that's why we had to hit that date there.
Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Carmine you're recognized for a question on the amendment all right
any more questions from the committee on the amendment
all right you want to speak all right you want to speak for the amendment against the amendment Rep. Woods, motions to adopt the amendment. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed by saying no. Ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. You are recognized to explain
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
10:31
your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you all know, Congress has already
said that there will be an exchange in the state of Arkansas unless the court holds it unconstitutional or Congress repeals the law, there will be an exchange. The only question that remains for the state is who do we want to have oversight of our insurance? Do we want the feds to do it or do we want to do it? And the testimony questions the other day were very good. A lot of the concerns
were sent around whether or not the bill was fiscally responsible, whether we should delay this bill or go to another point. At this time I think that it's in the best interest of the State of Arkansas to move forward. And that's essentially what this bill is going to do. It's going to propel the State of Arkansas to move forward with putting together a health care exchange. As you know, the reason why we have this is because the Republicans on
the other side wanted the states to be in control of their insurance. And this is essentially what this bill is going to do. And
we will be happy to take
any questions. Representative Hyde, you are recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Allen, wouldn't you agree that, in fact, HHS already has an exchange basically in the can that they're developing? They are fully prepared and they are ready and fully intend to step in
and have the opportunity to take over some insurance for right now. They've been trying to move forward with taking over state's insurance for some time, But this is an opportunity, if we fail to act, to allow
them to come in and take over health insurance. And they are moving forward with the design of an exchange. That is correct. And that this bill and this action has nothing to do with whether you support the National Health Care Reform Act or you don't support it. This is simply proved in action by the
legislature to protect and preserve the control of our health insurance in Arkansas
and retain our premium taxes. Folks may not all realize that within part of controlling our insurance in general, and specifically health insurance, is the collection of premium taxes. Those are not new taxes. They have been there for some time. They total some $200 million a
year. and they fund numerous things. I think $80 million of it is dedicated. The most notable to everyone here, hoping that you're still agreeing with me, is what we commonly call 833 money.
833 money is what funds every volunteer fire department and municipal fire department in the state. And should we mess this up, folks, and lose that money, I'd be interested in knowing how we're going
to replace it, because I'm thinking that's pretty critical service, And I think I'll have a difficult time selling a new tax in my district to try and find that funding. So wouldn't you
agree that the prudent and the responsible thing is to support this bill and let the courts do their work while we do our work?
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
13:58
I would totally agree with you. Thank you. Representative Murdoch, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Hyde did a wonderful job of basically intimating my thoughts as well. But I have a few more questions, Representative Allen. Didn't basically with the conversation and the discussion with Representative Wood specifically
that we're not in the balance of hearing everybody and trying to make this bill a balanced, you you know, without partisanship, a bill that reflected all the views of both parties at the table? We did. I think that Commissioner Bradford
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
14:46
and Representative Wood says that they amended the bill either nine times or ten times. Right. So there was not a rush, as some people may
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
14:55
think. It may not be the rush that some people may think that this has been in a hopper, if you
will for a while has been discussed from both sides of the aisle, and this is not nothing. We're just trying to do as Representative Hyde, correctly intimated, trying to take care of our business. And as well, the last thing to reiterate that he said, this is not about necessarily debating or legislating the federal package. This is the state of Arkansas trying to keep control in the state of Arkansas. Would you agree with that? That is correct.
Okay, Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
15:38
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I want to talk about the bill. I got a question about the actual bill. Mr. Morris, one thing I noticed in the bill is it defines a small employer by having the 2 to 100 employees. And then on page 23, it redefines a small employer of having 2 to 50. Can
John Morris
Unverified
15:59
you explain to me why there's a difference? MR. That was actually a provision that we had talked to the health insurance industry
about. The federal law actually requires
that the definition be 2 to 50 and says that it has to be 2 to 100 by 2015. So it gives states the discretion in order to decide whether or not the protections afforded under the bill should apply to small groups of larger than 2 to 50. And so the way that it's worded, it would define it as 2 to 50, but then give the commissioner the discretion to determine whether or not the timing is appropriate to expand that definition
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
16:39
to 2 to 100. Okay. Can I get a follow-up? Go ahead. My other issue was is that the federal act that was passed, they're
requiring that dental benefits be for children included. No health insurance that
Speaker 60
17:01
I ever had has ever included dental insurance. And I was just wondering why that's. That was actually
Speaker 24
17:07
put in under the original federal act. Now, there is a great number of benefits that are unsettled now.
That's the essential benefits. I'm sure you've read about that. That will unfold in the future. And it will involve the legislature because we do have some mandated benefits that will have to be changed if they're not in that federal package. So that will be an issue that you'll be faced sooner or later in this chamber. So everybody is very much looking at what that essential package will be.
And there's a hook there, too. You've heard about it, I know. that says if we mandate a benefit
Speaker 60
17:53
that's not essential, that we have to pick,
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
17:56
the state has to pick up the financial exposure. So what you're saying is we can change this as we go throughout the next couple of sessions until
Speaker 24
18:09
That's really one of the major reasons for going, you know, having the local exchange. So, yes, we will have rules and regs here that you all will have the option to approve or disapprove to make it work, to make it work as it unfurls.
That's what I was getting at is without this, we
Speaker 53
18:30
don't have that control is what you're trying to tell me. That is correct. Thank
you. Representative Westerman, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
18:46
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have some questions specific to the bill, starting on page 24, line 11.
It says here that this is not a state agency. It refers to it as a body politic. That's what the Arkansas Health Benefits Exchange would be classified as. And my concern is what kind of a regulatory beast would this legislation allow to be created? I serve on the Revenue and Tax Committee, and I've gotten to know DF&A quite well. Had a long conversation with them just a couple of days ago about a bill to exempt road funds from sales taxes,
and they informed me that it's built into our plan that we have to charge tax on federal funds. But I see here that this body politic has an exemption from all state, county, and local taxes, and I don't see anybody from DFA here to argue it in this committee. It also says that this organization or body politic is exempt from the Arkansas procurement law. and also says it's exempt from the Arkansas Public Officers and Employees Law
and the Arkansas Administrative Procedures Act. So I'm trying to understand what other types of, and it says it's not an agency, but what
other kinds of state government groups do we have that we can compare
John Morris
Unverified
20:17
this to in order of its scope and magnitude? Representative, this was the model for the
structure of the exchange that we're proposing. is the high-risk pool, the CHIP plan. That is, at least from the Department's view,
the closest analogy to what this will be doing in the state is what the CHIP plan already does, which is essentially provide insurance for Arkansans through a quasi-governmental agency. So the provisions that are in with respect to how it will be run and the different things that it will apply to it and will not were taken directly from the CHIP law as that seemed to be the best
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
21:00
apples-to-apples comparison. Yeah, it seems like it's creating a lot of leeway in the organization where they've not
got a lot of, they don't have to play with the same rules as a lot of the other groups do. Another question, you said that there have already been some federal funds approved. are there any criteria that must be met for accepting these funds or does it come with or do they come
John Morris
Unverified
21:26
with no strings attached there there are federal grant monies and and the federal law actually spells out that they have to be used for at least the ones that we've got for for planning the exchange that
those monies actually have to be used for planning the exchange or if if the monies that were obtained for rate review, that those monies are actually have to be used to get the state in a position of being able to review rates as required under federal rules. So absolutely there are strings attached to those that they're not for general use. If the Department does not use them for the
specific purposes, then there would be issues with the federal government at that point.
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
22:09
So the Federal Department of Health and
Human Services will be given direction to our Arkansas Health Benefits Exchange on how to structure and form the exchange? Not how to structure and
John Morris
Unverified
22:21
form. They've just provided that if with the money that has been given through the federal grants that that money will be used for the purpose in which they intend, which is to plan the exchange. they, as I see it, have not been giving the states clear direction as to how those things
are being structured or planned. I think that is the purpose of these planning stages, is so that the various states can actually take control of their exchanges, figure out what is best for that state and how they structure it, and move forward based upon what is best for that state. Because how the state of Washington might decide to structure their exchange might not be what's best for Arkansas, and that's, as I understand it, that was one of the purposes was to allow the states to maintain autonomy over their exchange, and that money is to
be used to figure out what is the best way exactly to structure it and plan for
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
23:22
it in this state. But there is an overall federal framework that the plan has to fit into. I know just from experience
with public schools that with federal funds there are strings the tax and the criteria that you have to meet or you don't get the funds? MR.
John Morris
Unverified
23:37
Well, as far as the planning money, the one that you alluded to
that we've already received, we just need to show progress that we are planning and that we are making
progress, such as the Department has already formed some kind
of advisory groups, working groups to assist in giving, you know, a diverse group of stakeholders the ability
to make recommendations to the department so that they can have a say in exactly what they think is the best thing for the state. So absolutely, there is – we definitely have to
show progress, but we have the ability
within the state to kind of decide how it should be structured.
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
24:24
Okay, and this issue has been framed to us as more or less an either-or scenario. Either we implement our own exchange by January of 2013 or the federal government through the Department of Health and Human Services will create an exchange for us. And as I look through the bill and study this, my question is what's the difference? In scenario one, we accept money from the federal government to implement their program
according to their framework, or scenario two, they implement the program for us. So, you know, to kind of boil this down and get it on terms I could understand, the first option seems more like a form of indentured servanthood, if you will, and the second seems more like forced servanthood. So either way, we give up our freedom and our state sovereignty on that. So is there a door number three is my question.
to build a state plan without federal streams attached that would truly protect the interests of Arkansans with a truly more administrative exchange and not such a regulatory
Speaker 24
25:41
progress on the federal level, there are going to be changes made, you know, and that's one reason we're trying to get in a position where we can adopt things to make it work for Arkansans. but
Speaker 76
25:54
the bottom line is that if the courts hold
we don't know if the courts hold that federal law supersedes us
Speaker 24
26:03
we will have to deal with the federal regulations and rules but if we have the ability to promulgate them for Arkansans here we can make them work a lot better for the people we care about and we represent So 80% of the rules and regs from the federal have not been promulgated to date. And one reason we wanted to have the ability here is because we can't bring you into session on a regular basis.
If they do something up there, you see, that would mandate that we change down here. and so we have to have some flex we wanted to have some flexibility for our chances to do that to adopt whatever's coming down it's gonna we all know there's going to be probably some dramatic changes in the federal and you're right uh a resident investment we may just end up with a commercial exchange here but there's nothing wrong with that that can you know that's a consumer privately insured exchange that it could certainly help people purchase their insurance on a more competitive basis.
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
27:15
There's one in Utah that operates right now. And my final question, and it has to do with the importance of this legislation and the complexity of it, and I don't know that we have enough time to truly vet this with
the time that we have left in the session So why wasn't this brought out earlier in
Speaker 60
27:40
the session? Yeah, that's a really good question there because, as Representative Wood said, they admitted it nine
Speaker 24
27:46
times for his interest and other people's interest that he was cared about,
and we had dealt with the insurance companies that were going to be regular out of this. This is, you know, we had the legislature who had their own concerns. We had the insurance agents. Obviously, we didn't walk away from the consumers. That's who we owe the most to. And so it was a, what you see here is a work that had tremendous amount of input in from people who are concerned about it. And that's why it took so long. In fact, we had competing, we had competing shale bills, which was dividing y'all up.
Speaker 82
28:28
So we had to get everybody together, and we
hope we got y'all together. Okay, thank you, Representative Westman. Folks, again, in the interest of time, we're up against a hard deadline
Speaker 14
28:45
here. We have to get out of here by about ten minutes till. So I'm going to ask that you, if you have any
more questions, to make them short, we
still have to hear from the opposing side. Representative Viviano, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've
heard some suggestions from the committee this morning that perhaps the establishment exchange really is not going to impact whether ultimately we implement the proposed federal mandated health
care. Do you agree with that? The question is who? Well, I think the question is who?
So would you agree that we, in order to ultimately implement the mandated health care plan, that we are
Speaker 60
29:44
going to have to have an exchange? That is the
core of the legislation. So this,
in fact, is the first step in ultimately implementing that proposed federal
Speaker 60
29:58
mandated health care plan. This is a planning project that's funded by the federal government to get ourselves
Speaker 24
30:06
in a position where we can do our part as far as representing and regulating it for the benefit of Arkansas. The courts are going to decide the ultimate of whether it's going to be going forward with it, but we can't wait around for that, you know, we've got to be ready for whatever happens. As this bill
Speaker 83
30:29
says, if the courts rule against this, this all goes away. It's in your
legislation. On Wednesday, we talked about it.
We have accepted grant money already, correct?
Okay. When we accepted that grant money, did we have to sign any type of contract
Speaker 76
30:49
with the federal government? Absolutely. Absolutely. In fact, it would be easier
Speaker 24
30:53
for me to explain if I had the grant, that we had submitted a grant, which was multiple pages, 25, 30, 40 pages, of what we wanted to do with the money. They approved it. They approved it.
And so we follow that track, and it's in the form of a contract. They gave us the money to follow that application. So we have benchmarks. We have dates. We have to make progress. It's like a private contract between two business people. You accept the money, you have an obligation to perform. And so that's what we have. So we've accepted the
money. We've signed the contract. We're talking about the complexity of this bill
and perhaps the lack of understanding and communication. So we've done all that, But we're here today for the first time presenting this bill to the legislative body, which ultimately we're representing the will of the people of the state of Arkansas. So we've accepted the
money, we've signed the contract, and now we're discussing whether we're going to do
Speaker 75
32:02
it or not. Well, we applied for the grant. We were
Speaker 24
32:06
awarded the grant. We went to the legislative body.
We went to the peer committee and explained it. They approved it. there were jobs involved in this. They're federally funded jobs. We went through personnel committee. They approved those jobs. The body could have stopped this at that point in time, any time. And so let's just fast forward, we get another grant. Same thing. It's coming right back to the leadership, and we've got to go through the appropriate committees, and it can be stopped at the will of those committees at any time.
And this was totally approved by, you know, the legislature and explained and questioned by
Speaker 76
32:48
the legislature. We've got a couple questions about the cost. Mr. Biviano, I
apologize for interrupting you, sir, but, again, we have a hard deadline, and we still have to hear it. They'll be brief. Make them very brief. How many states have implemented this? Well, I'm going to get close.
Speaker 24
33:18
states have accepted the planning money. Many states whose governors are adamantly against it have filed suit against these mandates. Oh, yes, they've accepted the money because they won't be ready if this thing goes against their rules to take care of their people. So almost everybody
Speaker 60
33:35
took the money. I probably could say even more than that took the money to plan.
To plan. How many have started the actual implementation of exchanges?
Speaker 24
33:49
There's a plan, a planning process. That's why we have these dates. We've got to get ready. We know we've got to be there by 13. It will be
Speaker 79
33:59
there for the people by 13. So there are some states, like Massachusetts, that did it three or four or five years ago under Governor Romney. And then we have also California has stepped out there, and Florida is ahead of most, and Utah has a
private exchange. Okay. You said on Wednesday that the state would not appropriate any money.
Speaker 60
34:19
This would only be done through grants, right? You're correct, but
you still have to appropriate it, even though we get the grant. Representative Viviano,
I apologize. One final question, please. Okay. Make it very, very brief. Isn't it true that the states of Massachusetts, Utah, and California have had to actually appropriate millions of dollars of state funds in addition to the grants in order to
Speaker 60
34:48
implement their exchanges? exchanges? Well, see, that's a whole different scenario. This is a planning grant. Now,
if these states are ahead of the federal
Speaker 24
34:58
law, which is not effective to the 14, they've done that on their own. They did that with their legislative process to fund, like Massachusetts and I don't know. I think that the Utah exchange, that is privately funded. That's not state money, to my knowledge, and I think Indiana is going forward with one, too. I appreciate you answering
the question. I'm a little disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that in an issue of this important to the citizens
of the state of Arkansas, we're trying to get this pushed through in a matter of an
hour. So I'm disappointed in that. I fully understand and note it. All right. Representative Allen I'm asking you if you
would mind yielding to a couple of folks for opposition if they will be brief My good friend Mr.
Speaker 50
35:53
Dan Greenberg Yes sir it is As a matter
of fact we've got him up first
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
36:00
Mr. Greenberg you're recognized Good morning. My name is Dan Greenberg. I'm an attorney here in Little Rock. I always begin by saying I just speak for myself. I work for two nonprofits, but I'm speaking for myself as an individual. It's a real pleasure to be here, especially in this committee. I have such high regard for the members here in this committee, especially high regard for the chairman, Fred Allen. And, in fact, I have just the same high regard for him as he always demonstrates for me.
So I'm grateful to be here. You know, my recollection is that when I was a legislator, things got pretty fast at the end of the session. There wasn't quite enough time to think and read everything. And, you know, it just seems to me that there's a serious question here. Why act now? Because it seems like everything that people want to do here who have been sitting here can be done a year from now, for instance, in the fiscal session or in a special session. All that happens in the first deadline, which is 21 months from now, is that somebody in Washington is going to sit at a desk
and they're going to say, it looks like they're on track. That is the 2013 deadline, the first one that the state has to meet. Of course, that's my assumption because, as the chairman said, there are lots of regulations, about 80% of them enabling this federal health care that haven't even been written yet. So it's clear to me that in some sense we're wandering around in the dark right now with people urging us to take action now. You may have seen a brief paper I wrote about federal health care reform, and I pointed out that there are several problems with it. Let me just speak on one of them, which I think that this amendment that you all just approved earlier today really doesn't address.
Suppose the Supreme Court decides that federal health care reform is unconstitutional in December. The amendment does not address that. Suppose Congress decides that they want to change federal health care reform significantly. The amendment does not address that. Suppose the Supreme Court overturns just Section 1321C, which is the enabling part that creates the exchange. This amendment does not address that. And so the central problem is that I fear that y'all are about to create an exchange that is going to be something like a barnacle on a ship.
It's pretty hard to get rid of barnacles once they're put on a ship. it's pretty hard to get rid of institutions at the state government level once they're enacted. Institutions that y'all may create today, they have their own momentum, they have their own inertia, they build up their own constituencies, they build up their own client groups, and of course we've all had members of the legislature come up to us and explain their brilliant plan about what they're going to do in their first term, their second term, their third term. They have this multi-year plan, but it's probably safe to assume that once y'all do something,
once you build something, it's going to be here forever. That's the way state government programs typically work. And so that's why the argument that we can come back and fix it later is, in my view, a failing argument. Everybody knows that it's better to get it right the first time. Right now we've got, in my view, an army of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., writing enabling regulations in some dimly-lit cubicle that we don't know about. We don't know what they're going to produce. Mr. Greenberg, I apologize. May I just conclude? Yes. Thanks. You know, we heard a great deal of rhetoric about a war of choice that the Bush administration carried out some years ago.
I don't take a position on that, but this is clearly a decision of choice. This is not a decision that you have to make today. This is a vote that historians are going to look at to determine what kind of legislator you are. And in my view, it's a vote that the people are going to look at next year to determine your priorities and the choices that you make in terms of establishing federal health care reform. I think that there are other options that you can take next year, and I think that the state
will be better for it. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Greenberg. I've got Joe Thompson on the list to speak for the bill.
Speaker 95
39:54
Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. I'm recognized, sir. Joe Thompson, Surgeon General
Speaker 96
39:57
for the State of Arkansas. I'm here on behalf of the health care providers and, more importantly, their patients. This is the financing system that we're talking about that is the infrastructure to actually support people getting care when and where they need it. I would speak in support of this bill for the following reason. We in Arkansas need to retain control to shape our system to fit the topography that we have. A California plan, which could be what the feds base their plan off of,
a New York plan, a Massachusetts plan, will get put on top of Arkansas. That's what we've had experience before. Managed care didn't work here. It worked great in California and New York. It doesn't work in rural, southern, poor states like ours. So I would ask you to support this bill to retain control of a planning process. The federal law is very clear. If we are not making the plan, they will assume and take control of that planning process. You just, I think, candidly got threatened with the election in the next year.
If we're not in control of our health care system, that's going to be a lot more important than what bureaucrats are doing in
Washington. Thank you for voting for this bill. All right, Ms. Thompson, if you don't mind
just a second. Representative Lovell, are you recognized for one question? I actually have two, but maybe I'm getting in one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Thompson, we've heard that we have to do something. The Secretary of the HHS federal side will rule by 1-1-2013
that we have made progress toward implementing the plan. Do you agree that if we don't make progress between now and 2013 that the federal government would take
Speaker 95
41:45
over our health plan in Arkansas? As I read the act that has been passed by Congress
Speaker 96
41:51
and the actions of the federal government, that is the stipulation. It's not that we have to implement a plan by 2013, But they have to see that we are working toward implementation if the courts hold and Congress
Speaker 95
42:06
doesn't reverse. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Hyde, you're recognized
for a question. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think it's just a yes or no. Dr. Thompson, you know, we've heard some suggestions and comments as to, well, why don't we just wait another year or wait, you know, we've got a whole 21 months. And it's been my experience in the four or five years I've been here is that, you know, it's very difficult for government to do anything quickly. So can you tell me, in your opinion, because you're certainly on the inside of all this,
if we wait another 12 months to delay our planning, does that leave us plenty of time or adequate time to comply with all the requirements of the federal law? No, sir. I don't think the federal
Speaker 95
42:50
timeline gave anybody enough time to implement this,
Speaker 96
42:52
so wasting 12 months would be a huge detriment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
All right. We've got time for a short comment from one person opposed to the bill. Jeannie Burlesworth, please take the end of the table and state your name, please. Jeanne Burlesworth,
Speaker 105
43:35
Secure, Arkansas. Thank you. You're recognized.
Speaker 106
43:40
Please be brief. All righty. Why I'm here today is because I received so many calls because they wanted me to relate to this legislative body that we are totally in uncharted waters here, and the citizens are greatly concerned about this having to be done today. I mean, I think we need to pause and take a break and sit back and look at this because we've never been this way before. And why should Arkansas be the first to jump in this and see how it turns out?
This just happens to be, and I'd like to leave this with this committee, the 159 entities that this creates. And I will give you who prepared this, and I will leave it with the committee. It was prepared by the Joint Economic Committee. I'm sorry, Ms. Burlesworth. We can't have that submitted in evidence.
We don't have a copy of it. Would you mind me just leaving it on the table? I can't
allow that at this time. I'm sorry.
Speaker 106
44:41
Well, if anyone's interested, I'll meet you in the hall.
Please speak on the bill as soon as possible. Here we have signed a contract, and this is what this is about, complying with the federal government. And if we can wait, that is basically what we are suggesting. This is a jobs killer. This expands government. It raises taxes. Small businesses are absolutely so concerned over the way this insurance exchange is going to go. And I do believe that there are more options besides BB's exchange plan, besides Obama's exchange plan.
I believe that we could take a look at the third option because the cost of this is going to be passed on to the taxpayer ultimately in the end. Okay.
Thank you, Ms. Burlesworth. We appreciate you speaking against the bill. All right.
Lynn Zeno, you're recognized to speak for the bill.
So, and again, I don't have to remind you, we are short in time.
Len Zeno
Unverified
45:53
I'll be very quick, Mr. Chairman. My name is Len Zeno, and I'm the Director of the Independent Insurance Agents of Arkansas. I can tell you that for the last two years, there's no group that has been more opposed to Obamacare than independent insurance agents. I've made more trips to Washington than anybody in the room in opposed to Obamacare. However, it's passed in the wisdom of U.S. Congress There would be nobody more pleased If the whole act was repealed
There would be nobody more pleased If the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional However, right now we have two options One option is for the state To take control of our own insurance program These exchanges The other option Is for the federal government to take control So, part of the federal plan, if you've read the legislation, and it's painful to read, I promise you, says that the federal administration can contract out to non-profit associations to run these insurance programs.
Well, those non-profit associations could be ACORN. So I can assure you that we as independent insurance agents would rather have Arkansas Insurance Department in charge of these health insurance changes than a nonprofit association such as ACORN. Let me give you one more just a quick story.
Len Zeno
Unverified
47:22
For 15 years, I represented the doctors in this state. We dealt with the federal bureaucrats. At one point in time, I called the regional director of the Department of Health and Human Services in Dallas, Texas.
Exactly six months later from my call, I got a return call. You can call the Arkansas Insurance Department and you'll get a call back from the commissioner in 24 hours, maybe in 24 minutes. So there's no government more closer to the people than local government. Thank you, sir. Thank you,
sir. If there's any question, we have an excellent insurance department. I move for immediate consideration. Well, I will take your motion in consideration, Mr.
Speaker 70
48:12
But the chair doesn't have to recognize. The chair does
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
48:28
not have to recognize your motion, sir. Not right now. I think Mr. Allen wants to close for his bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I know that this is going to be a very difficult decision for some, but there comes a point in time in our life where we have to make tough decisions.
And many of the decisions that we make will be unpopular, but what we have to do today is do what's in the best interest of the people of the state of Arkansas. So I ask you all for a good vote on this bill.
Thank you. All right, Representative Allen is closed for his bill. It is a pleasure of the committee. Move, do pass. All right, refer to motion to do pass. All in agreement signify by saying aye.
All opposed by saying no. Ayes have it. All right. I see two hands for a roll call. I'm sorry. We need to please, audience, keep the
comments to yourself. Be courteous to everybody in here.
Speaker 111
49:45
Representative Woods. Representative Lovell. Representative Pierce. Representative Pierce. Representative King. Representative Hyde Representative Word Representative Carnine Representative Rice Representative Barnett Representative Ingram
Representative Wilkins Representative Wright Representative Biviano Representative Wren Representative Catlett Representative Murdoch Representative Westerman Representative Wardlaw Representative Kerr
Speaker 121
50:50
Representative Allen 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 You need 11 Alright, the vote is 10, yay, 7, nay You need 11 to pass the bill The bill has failed
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 5
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 14
Representative Mark Biviano Chair
Unverified
Speaker 23
Speaker 24
John Morris
Unverified
Representative Barry Hyde Chair
Unverified
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 60
Speaker 62
Speaker 53
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
Speaker 75
Speaker 76
Speaker 82
Speaker 83
Speaker 79
Speaker 50
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
Speaker 95
Speaker 96
Speaker 105
Speaker 106
Len Zeno
Unverified
Speaker 32
Speaker 70
Speaker 111
Speaker 121