Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 851352,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/851352/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 271,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Seme, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) James Nyikal",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 434,
        "legal_name": "James Nyikal",
        "slug": "james-nyikal"
    },
    "content": " The miscellaneous amendment’s principle is good. As Member for Suba North said, it is meant for minor corrections, errors and ambiguities. In the facts of law, it should be really minor changes of law. What we are seeing is that we are having very major changes that are being brought by miscellaneous amendments. We are changing structures of boards as it is being proposed for the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF). We are changing modes of appointments of officers as put down in law. We are establishing directorates through miscellaneous amendments as being proposed in amendments to the Urban Areas and Cities Bill. If we do this with so many Bills, we do not give those serious issues adequate consideration. No wonder we are having very many of them coming back and forth, as somebody said “cyclic legislation”. In the current Bill, we should note that a lot of the Bills being discussed here have been discussed recently. The amendments being proposed have been discussed recently. The KEMSA has just been discussed; the NHIF has just been discussed in the Health Laws (Amendment) Bill; the Urban Areas and Cities Bill has just been discussed not long ago; the SACCO Societies Act has been discussed; the Betting, Lotteries and Gaming Act has just passed through this House. We should pass miscellaneous amendments for what it is meant, not these omnibus issues that bring a lot of complications. My recommendation is that when we come to the Committee of the whole House over this Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.2) Bill, the Committees must guide us. Otherwise, there will be a lot of repetition or changes of what has already been discussed. We have just gone through all the five Bills I have just mentioned. There may be differences in what is being proposed but, it is important to look at that at the time of the Committee of the whole House. I will go directly to some of the amendments proposed to the Acts. I think the NHIF Act has two elements. One is the proposal to change the National Hospital Insurance Fund to the National Health Insurance Fund; changing from the word “hospital” to “health”. It is important if we look at the role we intend to put the NHIF to and the expansion of the contribution being proposed. It is being proposed that there will be contribution from the Government and county governments. More importantly, it will be from employers. That will almost double the income or revenue that will go to the NHIF. Therefore, it will really be possible to use this organisation to spearhead our universal health coverage. That is if we choose, as we should, to use health insurance as the basis of our universal health coverage and not tax. Unfortunately, we seem to be talking about a tax based universal health coverage in the pilot. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. Acertified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}