(upbeat music)
Welcome back.
In a few weeks,
the Florida legislative
session will get underway.
And with Republicans firmly
in control in Tallahassee,
what the session might look like
and discuss just a few of
the more controversial issues
on the agenda.
This week, I spoke to state
a rising star in the GOP
who represents parts
of Kendall and Darale.
He is in line to become
speaker of the House in 2024.
priority is to make sure
that we get businesses
going again.
And we'll be doing that by
passing some legislation
that has to do with
protecting businesses
from potentially frivolous
lawsuits involving COVID.
So we're gonna give a layer
of protection from liability
when it comes to COVID
liability claims.
We'll be doing that
a house bill seven.
And then we're also
gonna be doing that
for the healthcare facilities.
So that includes nursing homes,
hospitals, primary
care physicians.
And that's gonna
rolled out yet.
But I would tell you,
that's probably gonna be the
biggest priority in the House
to make sure that we kind of
get our economy going again
after the pandemic that
we're still living in.
And the second
The budget is gonna be
a big issue as well.
I wanna talk to you one of
the more controversial items
that the legislature
will be taking up
which I believe
is House bill one
to trying to curb protests.
Critics say that it's a way to
sort of try to limit speech,
limit the ability of people
to go out and
peacefully protest.
How do you view this bill
and why is this
given all the other problems?
It's kind of ironic because
they're blaming this bill
on the Republicans trying
to limit freedom of speech.
And that's absolutely
just not true.
Actually, this
bill was rolled out
shortly after January 6th.
It was the incidence at the
Capitol in Washington, D.C.
for, which is wrong.
And I'm glad that the Florida
House of Representatives
is trying to do something
to make sure that that doesn't
happen in our own backyard
but it was those incidents
that actually really
and the fast
movement of this bill
through the Florida House.
So what we're trying to do is,
look, we want people
to have the ability
to have freedom of speech.
We want you to be
able to protest.
And sometimes what
we've seen as of late,
politics has become
very polarizing.
And what we're just trying
to do is make sure that,
you know, let's try
when we're protesting.
You know, let's try
not to break barricades
and roam into the Capitol
without permission.
Let's just do things
the right way.
And that's what this bill does.
Well, I mean, aren't there
already laws in place
that say that you
cannot break windows,
that you cannot vandalize,
that you cannot
ransack a building.
I mean, it seems to me
that if that's the goal
to pass a law to prevent that,
that's already there.
What this bill seems to do is
in order to prevent windows
from being shattered,
laws against it,
you are trying to prevent
people from even gathering
to be around windows
in the first place.
No, not necessarily, Jim.
people from gathering.
I'll give you a small
example of what's happening
and it happened here
in Miami actually.
People were getting arrested
for doing just that, right?
For breaking windows and
What was happening is they
were getting literally released
within a couple hours
and getting right
back into the riot
and doing it all over again.
Part of this bill,
amongst many different
facets of the bill,
is to make sure that you
if you've been arrested for
vandalizing our community.
That was not happening
in these riots that were
happening across the country,
at least in the
Let me introduce,
do you know--
There's many parts of the bill.
Excuse me?
Just on that point though,
do you have a list of cases
where somebody was arrested
for some sort of vandalism,
went to jail,
got out a couple hours
later and was rearrested?
I mean, how many people
are we talking about?
Are we talking about hundreds
and hundreds of people?
Who you have evidence
for that this took place?
Or is this just a few
anecdotal incidents?
Well, this is an issue
across the state,
and obviously I represent
so I can't give you numbers,
but at least in
Tampa in other words,
but I can tell you
with absolute certainty
that that happened in our
own backyard in Miami-Dade.
I know, as you said, there are
many elements to this bill.
One of the elements
as I understand it
is that this would
raise the liability
for individual local
elected officials.
So that, for instance,
as it's been explained to me
and please correct
me if I'm wrong,
is that if the
Miami police chief
were to go to the Miami
city commission and say,
"I have some concerns,
"I'm not sure if we should have
a permit for this gathering
"'cause I can't with 100%
certainty guarantee you
"that there won't be
an incident there."
But if the city
commission goes ahead
or the mayor goes ahead
and issues a permit
for that gathering,
that each member of
that city commission
would then be personally liable,
not protected by their their
role as a government official,
but personally liable for any
lawsuits that stem from it.
If that's the case,
if you create a
system like that,
ever give out a permit
for people to be
able to protest,
peacefully or otherwise?
Right. I know, Jim.
That's a great point.
What I think you're
trying to refer to is
we've set in a process.
And just to give you a
little bit of a background,
the whole purpose of this
specific portion of the bill is
to make sure that
those commissioners,
city, county, municipal,
that decided to
defund the police
that there is a ramification
as far as the
budget is concerned
for that same city,
county or municipality,
we're trying to set standard
so that the defunding the
police idea doesn't take place
standards where we say,
"Look, if you guys want to,
"as a city commissioner,
"today wanna defund the police,
"if you want to take away funds
from our police department,
"well then us as a state
parts of our local government,
"then we are gonna
hold back those funds
"because we're not
gonna have any part
"in defunding the police
on the local level."
When it comes to the
personal responsibility
and being liable for a
protest that goes wrong,
I'm not sure that we're
interpreting the bill correctly.
And by we I mean this
conversation because--
Me. Well, that's okay.
You can say you're not sure
if I'm interpreting
the bill correctly.
I accept that, okay.
Yeah.
But no, no.
A city commissioner would
if there was a peaceful protest
that had the right licenses
and a bad actor decided
to act out of line.
But I will tell you this, Jim,
this is a bill that has
been very contentious
judiciary committee
so its final stop
is my committee.
We had the first stop
performed last week.
It was through a subcommittee
in the upcoming week.
And then the final
stop will be judiciary
in the upcoming weeks.
And if those issues are unclear,
that'll be the place
and I'm sure we'll deal with
it at the appropriate time.
I do wanna talk to you
about something you
mentioned off the top,
which was the liability
protection for
businesses in COVID.
that you believe is important.
Explain to me what this
legislation would do
and why it's needed
at this time.
Yeah, Jim, what we're
you know, unfortunately
COVID is a reality today
and it's gonna be
for the near future,
and what we're
trying to avoid is,
you know, if I were to walk
into a supermarket today
and then I go to
the movie theater
and then I go get a haircut
and I go to the restaurant
and then I go home
and unfortunately,
I now have COVID,
I don't wanna be
entity that I was a part of.
I think we're just gonna
clog the court systems
and probably enter some
frivolous lawsuits.
So what we're doing is
which hasn't passed yet
but it's going through
the Florida House
that the only way a business
entity could be liable
for COVID liability is
if they didn't abide
by the CDC guidelines
or the department
of health guidelines
and by a clear and
convincing evidence,
which would be the
burden of proof,
they have been able to be
negligence is essentially
when you purposely or
willfully act negligent
or act against a certain
party or entity or individual.
And so what we're
trying to say is,
"Look, if you were irresponsible
"to the point that you didn't
abide by the guidelines,
"then absolutely you should
be held accountable."
But we also don't
want businesses,
especially small businesses
who have already taken such
we don't want them getting hit
with tens and tens of lawsuits.
And I think you just hit
on a couple of phrases
'cause I wanna just go back.
As I understand it,
you said, gross negligence,
and the evidentiary standard
from greater weight
of the evidence
to clear and
convincing evidence.
My question is,
have you raised the bar so high
that the chances of
succeeding in a lawsuit
against the company that
may not have done right
is impossible there?
I don't think so.
That's not what I think the
outcome of this bill would be
if it were signed
by the governor.
Obviously in due time
we will find out.
But no, that's not
our goal at all.
We still wanna hold
businesses accountable.
We just wanna hold the
bad actors accountable.
I do wanna turn
to a topic you and I have
talked a little about earlier,
Medicaid expansion.
I know this is an issue
that keeps coming up
and I don't believe
that Florida will expand
Medicaid this year
through their legislative
of the governor.
But I would note that
there is a recent survey
that came out conducted
by Tyson Group.
76% of registered
voters in the state
support a more expansive
Medicaid program.
Only 13% are against it.
In Miami-Dade that
number is even higher.
I guess, philosophically, I
know you're opposed to it,
but I just wanna ask why.
If we can insure
tens of thousands,
hundreds of thousands of
additional people in Florida,
get them health insurance,
with the vast majority
of it being paid for
by the federal government,
why not take advantage of that?
Look, Jim, you and
I and everyone else,
obviously we always
want what's best.
If I can make sure that
every single person,
the United States and the world
has a roof over their head,
then we're gonna do that.
If we can make sure that
everyone has education
as to the highest standard
that anyone can possibly give,
we're gonna do that.
the world that we live in
is there's a budget.
That's the reality
of this world.
There's a budget.
I'm sure it polls crazy high.
But, Jim, we don't
govern by polling.
The moment we start
governing by polling,
we're gonna lose
control of the state.
And it's the reason why
we're getting literally
1,000 people a day moving
into the state of Florida.
It's because of
the way we govern.
And we have a balanced budget.
And a part of our
budget is healthcare
as we stated earlier
in this conversation.
And we have to abide
by the dollars that we have
you're talking about
when you're talking
about federal federal
dollars that come down
and why aren't we drawing
the federal dollars and,
look, because of COVID,
we've expanded Medicaid.
Because of COVID,
that have healthcare coverage
under Medicaid today in
the state of Florida.
Because those people needed it.
It was necessary and we as
a state had to find a way
to make sure that we don't
leave anyone out to dry.
year that we're in
and the increased costs on
healthcare that we're at,
because of the people
that we are now
covering under Medicaid
and we did it because of COVID,
we're just not in
a state financially
to expand Medicaid right now.
Is it short-sighted though,
because you know, if
somebody is not insured,
and I realize you have expanded
and covered more people
lost their jobs
and fallen below a certain line
and so therefore are now
covered under Medicaid
where they may not
have previously been,
but by expanding Medicaid,
don't you actually in
the long run save money
because these people
still need healthcare.
They just end up in
our emergency rooms,
whether it's Jackson or
some other emergency room,
to pay for them anyway.
If someone is uninsured,
it's the purpose of our
safety net hospitals.
And I'm glad you
bring up Jackson.
It's a perfect example.
Every single year through the
low income pool, through LIP,
Jackson receives certain dollars
in addition to state funds and
federal funds and local funds
to where they're able
to provide that service
There is no one in the state
of Florida that can say,
"I tried to receive medical
service and I was denied."
It's absolutely just not true.
If they were to
walk into Jackson
which is a safety
net state hospital,
you have the right treatment.
But the problem becomes
that when you show up
in an emergency room,
it's usually because things
have progressed to the point
where it now is an emergency
whereas if you're
covered under Medicaid,
maybe you're getting
the preventative care,
the type of care that you need
that would prevent you
from having emergency care,
which is all that
much more expensive.
I think that's the argument
in support of it is that
if you have health insurance,
you're seeing a
doctor in advance.
You're catching these things
before they develop into medical
crisis for the individual.
Yeah, Jim, you're right.
provide Medicaid.
That's why we work with
the federal government
to provide Medicare.
It's why we have private
healthcare insurers.
So yes, I agree with you.
And for those that qualify
are fortunate enough
to afford a private
health care insurer,
that's the service
that they get.
And the folks in between those
who currently get Medicaid
and those who have insurance,
that gap right there,
what happens to them?
It depends on that
person's circumstance.
This is not about
just making sure that
if you fall within a
certain gap or you don't.
Here's the way that I
would look at this, Jim.
We have a standard for Medicaid
and it has to do on a variety
of facts about your life,
about your income,
are you married,
do you have children.
If you fall within
those brackets,
then you are provided a service,
which is the Medicaid service,
that you cannot afford
to go out there and get a
private healthcare insurer.
What we're saying
in the state is
if you don't fall
within that bracket,
then it is our belief
that you are able to afford a
private health care insurer.