Jefferson Embraces Guv’s Private-Insurance Plan, Updated X1
1 comment August 14th, 2008
As the Register Star reported this morning …
Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford, reversed course [Wednesday] and embraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s changes in his bill to help college students keep health insurance when they must leave school because of illness or injury.
Jefferson said he initially viewed Blagojevich’s veto as an attempt to sabotage his initiative, but later decided to accept the governor’s changes — which dramatically expanded its scope — because he believes in increasing health care.
“Plans do change sometimes,” Jefferson said.
So what does this mean? There are practical and political implications.
First, the practical: If the bill — as amended by the governor’s changes — becomes law, then employers across Illinois likely will be on the hook for the cost of additional insurance sought by employees with children between 18 and 30.
The core of Jefferson’s bill would require health insurers to continue covering for a year dependent, full-time college students who leave school or reduce classload because of a catastrophic illness or injury. Under Blagojevich’s additional language, parents would have the option of simply keeping children on their private health plan until they turn 26 — or, in the case of veterans, the age of 30.
Blagojevich refused to acknowledge last night that employers might face additional cost, but Blagojevich also has a history of ignoring or even denying reality. “I don’t know that it’s going to cost them anything,” Blagojevich said.
So what happens now? It’s up to the Senate to decide whether to follow accept the governor’s changes to Jefferson’s bill, as the House did last night. It’s not clear when the Senate might vote, as the chamber is not scheduled to meet again until after the November general election. (On Wednesday, the House and Senate were meeting in a special session Blagojevich had called.) Blagojevich said Wednesday night that he would soon reach out to Senate President Emil Jones Jr., D-Chicago, concerning the schedule for a vote.
And this takes us to the political implications. These days in Springfield, most all significant action must be viewed through the lens of the ongoing feud between Blagojevich/Jones and House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. This move by Jefferson, a member of Madigan’s exclusive leadership team, is no exception.
By reversing position and accepting the governor’s changes to his bill, I believe Jefferson — backed by Madigan — accomplished the following:
1) He called the governor’s bluff. Blagojevich’s amendatory veto of Jefferson’s bill was widely viewed, by Jefferson and others, as a clear attempt to sabotage Jefferson’s bill in the course of Blagojevich’s feud with Madigan. By calling Blagojevich’s bluff, Jefferson (again, backed by Madigan) stunned other lawmakers, the business community and, apparently also, the governor. Rather than making a predictable move by fighting the governor’s changes, Jefferson & Madigan surprised him — and may keep him guessing in the future.
2) He neutralized a future attack by Blagojevich. Had Jefferson led the House in rejecting the governor’s changes to his bill, Blagojevich no doubt would have blasted the House — loudly and repeatedly — for voting to deny children health care. That’s just how Blagojevich works.
3) He kicked a political hot potato into the lap of Jones — Blagojevich’s ally and Madigan’s adversary. Jones must now reconcile the governor’s health-care initiative (riding on Jefferson’s bill) and fierce opposition from the business community. Jefferson and Madigan didn’t have to reconcile any fierce opposition from the business community because, quite frankly, the House voted on the governor’s amendment to Jefferson’s bill about an hour after it became clear that Jefferson would move to accept the amendment. It happened in a flash. There was no committee hearing. There was little informed debate on the House floor because other lawmakers had to spontaneously get up to speed on the governor’s changes to the bill. But now that this bill as amended is just one or two Senate votes from becoming law, the business community is paying attention. And it will be up to Jones to deal with them. (The business community, by the way, perhaps should not have assumed — and many others did — that Jefferson’s bill was all but dead after the governor amended it. Last night, the Illinois Chamber was completely taken off guard.)
Update 1
I should add that there’s also a constitutional angle.
There is much debate in Springfield about whether Blagojevich has the constitutional authority to amend a bill in this way. Yes, the governor of Illinois does have the power of amendatory veto. And that means he may veto a bill by suggesting changes to it, sending it back to lawmakers for their consideration of his changes. But the governor may not use an amendatory veto to wholesale re-write a bill, courts have held.
During Wednesday night’s floor debate over the governor’s changes to Jefferson’s bill, House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago, all but declared that the House Democrats’ motivation behind accepting the governor’s changes to Jefferson’s bill was to create a new test case for the courts.
“I think that the lack of clarity from the court decisions may mean that it’s time for a second crack for the judicial branch. Maybe we ought to invite the question before the courts whether this particularly amendatory veto, for example, does go beyond the scope of that authority provided in the Constitution. For that reason, I would suggest that an eye vote may help us answer this question that has been so contentious between the two branches ever since 1971.”
