Jeff Raymond
The Edmond Sun
EDMOND — Senate Bill 1996
Summary: This bill requires privatization of the state-backed CompSource workers’ compensation insurance provider.
Vote: Passed Senate 25-21
Sen. Todd Lamb: Aye
Sen. Clark Jolley: Aye
Our take: The problem with CompSource is it worked too well as an insurer of last resort and took market share away from more expensive, for-profit competitors. Privatizing CompSource will cause small businesses’ workers’ compensation insurance premiums to increase. This bill is a case of ideology trumping economics and is an anti-business gift from the Legislature to insurers that can’t compete with CompSource on price. Also, it’s unclear how the envisioned “public-private” partnership would work: Isn’t that largely the same as selling the insurer?
Next step: House consideration
Senate Bill 847
Summary: This bill requires a two-year “cooling-off” period before former legislators may become lobbyists.
Vote: Passed Senate 40-5
Sen. Todd Lamb: Aye
Sen. Clark Jolley: Aye
Our take: Closing the revolving door for legislators to become lobbyists is a small step toward restoring some confidence in government. However, we wonder whether it will truly make a difference. Only time will tell.
Next step: House consideration
Senate Bill 1973
Summary: This bill is a comprehensive overhaul of the state workers’ compensation system.
Vote: Passed Senate 28-18
Sen. Todd Lamb: Aye
Sen. Clark Jolley: Aye
Our take: Work can be dangerous, especially in oil fields, on farms and ranches and other places that play a vital role in Oklahoma’s economy. Legislators must preserve the ability of those who are hurt on the job to obtain the help they need. Workers’ compensation exists for them.
Next step: House consideration
Senate Bill 1849
Summary: This bill requires legislative approval of state-agency rules.
Vote: Passed Senate 36-8
Sen. Todd Lamb: Aye
Sen. Clark Jolley: Aye
Our take: Like many Oklahomans, we sometimes raise our eyebrows at agency rules and wonder where the accountability is. We’re concerned, however, that some rules that are necessary — and required by law — won’t be addressed by a disinterested or time-strapped Legislature. Agencies are tasked with implementing laws. This bill is good in theory but potentially problematic in practice. It’s important to note that agencies’ rules typically take effect unless the Legislature specifically disproves them.
Next step: House consideration
Senate Bill 1251
Summary: This bill prohibits health insurers from using domestic violence as a pre-existing condition or to deny claims.
Vote: Passed Senate 45-0
Sen. Todd Lamb: Aye
Sen. Clark Jolley: Aye
Our take: Don’t be fooled by this bill’s passage of the Senate. The insurance lobby will make every effort to kill it in the House. Our prediction: It won’t even receive a committee hearing. Oklahoma women who have lived through domestic abuse shouldn’t be victimized twice. The last thing a woman who has lived through domestic abuse should have to worry about is whether her care will be covered or will keep her from getting insurance in the future. By allowing insurance companies to deny care for domestic violence, we are discouraging women from coming forward and encouraging them to stay in abusive relationships.
Next step: House consideration
Senate Bill 1392
Summary: This bill originally required drug testing for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients but was expanded to include drug testing of CEOs of companies that receive tax credits/deductions and state elected officials.
Vote: Passed Senate 44-0
Sen. Todd Lamb: Aye
Sen. Clark Jolley: Aye
Our take: We’re not commenting on legislators and drug use, but we doubt this provision will survive. Still it’s fun to contemplate: Perhaps the tests could be handled like a weigh-in before a boxing match. Or maybe posted on a public bulletin board, like test scores. And we’d love to hear a legislator explain how he or she properly used a prescription. And don’t get us started on drug-testing CEOs. The possibilities are endless. Can state legislators and business leaders be fired if they test positive or just not offered a job in the first place?
Next step: House consideration
House Bill 1530
Summary: This bill requires one semester of health education during middle school. Edmond Sen. Clark Jolley is one of the bill’s authors.
Vote: Failed House 48-44
Rep. Marian Cooksey: Nay
Rep. Ken Miller: Nay
Rep. Lewis Moore: Aye
Rep. Jason Murphey: Nay
Our take: While we sympathize with those who say that schools have little room to add additional instruction and others who say that healthy behavior starts (or doesn’t start) in the home, we think that this bill is a modest start toward teaching children valuable information about how to take care of themselves — something far too many know next to nothing about. The Legislature saw the need to require financial literacy in schools; surely it’s not too much to require health literacy as well.
Senate Joint Resolution 59
Summary: This proposed constitutional amendment would allow Oklahomans to “opt out” of health care reform.
Vote: Passed Senate 30-16
Sen. Todd Lamb: Aye
Sen. Clark Jolley: Aye
Our take: This will be an easy sell for most legislators. Oklahomans can’t choose which laws to obey simply by citing the 10th Amendment, but laws like this almost certainly are going to need to be sorted out in the courts regardless. As the federal bill hasn’t been finalized, it’s not clear exactly what Oklahoma would be opting out of. When Medicaid passed in 1965, there were inducements — but no requirements — for states to participate. Arizona was last to enroll, in 1982. Health care reform may follow the same route. Opting out could tie hands at the state level — the State Coverage Initiative envisions an individual mandate that could be constitutionally banned under SJR 59.
Next step: House consideration
Senate Joint Resolution 58
Summary: This bill asks Congress to allow Oklahoma to opt out of national health care reform and return tax money collected under such a plan.
Vote: Passed Senate 35-11
Sen. Todd Lamb: Aye
Sen. Clark Jolley: Aye
Our take: In terms of practical effect, this bill is largely meaningless. Should health care reform pass, Congress will not return taxes just because the Oklahoma Legislature asks nicely. Even if Congress did return money to the state, it won’t go back into people’s pockets. We agree that the best health care reform takes place at the state level, but we doubt this bill will lead to anything constructive. Let’s start talking more about what we can do in Oklahoma. If we do that, we won’t need to talk as much about what Congress can’t do.
Next step: House consideration
