Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 356371,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/356371/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 266,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Onyura",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 12833,
        "legal_name": "Michael Aringo Onyura",
        "slug": "michael-aringo-onyura"
    },
    "content": "If there is any institution that can help us get universal healthcare that we have all been talking about, that institution is the NHIF. I would urge the House and the nation that we do everything we can to support this particular institution, develop it, move politics away from it and let it be managed by professionals professionally. Looking at the way the Motion is framed, I would be very reluctant to support it; when we reduce the surcharge, who are we assisting? Who are we trying to protect? Are we trying to protect the defaulters? Is this not likely to affect the NHIF adversely? Most likely, unless the penalties are deterrent enough, you will find that the level of compliance will go down much more. So, I would wish that the surcharge is retained at the level at which it is; what could be done is to have certain provisos, so that each case can is looked at from its own background, circumstances, merits or demerits. Administrative levels should also be created where any defaulter can present their case and argue it, so that it is known whether the default is because of gross negligence or just stubbornness, and then it is dealt with appropriately. Maybe it is mischief which can then be dealt with appropriately. Where a defaulter can show, for example, that it occurred as a result circumstances way beyond their control, then there should be ways of abetting the surcharge or even waiving it rather than reducing it, and, therefore, encourage defaulters to comply."
}