Telling us what we already pretty much knew, here’s the Globe:
Health care spending for Massachusetts communities has nearly doubled since 2001, squeezing town budgets and forcing cutbacks in public safety and government services and leading to calls for property tax increases.
Employee healthcare costs in cities and towns shot up about 85 percent , from an average $2.5 million to $4.7 million, from 2001 to 2006 , according to a Globe analysis of budgets from 324 communities , using data from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.
Ouch, ouch, ouch. I’m getting less patient with the reasoning of some of those who don’t support forcing — yes, forcing — municipal unions into the state’s insurance program (GIC), which has had lower increases. Yeah, we’ve got significant union buy-in to the 70% proposal (like from the teachers); yeah, I know no one (including Gov. Patrick, or my senator, Pat Jehlen) wants to take on the police and firefighters’ unions, but … come on. This is ridiculous. How can the governor advocate for property tax relief and still put up with massive cost increases year after year? And on the other hand: How can the firefighters and cops blithely advocate chucking more and more money at their insurance companies, at the expense of, say, hiring more firefighters and cops?
It’s just a zero-sum game, folks: Push the unions into the GIC, or raise taxes/cut services, with no forseeable end in sight. Decide.
Update: … Oh yes, and this also shows how critical it is to address the central issue of health care costs in general. Costs can only be addressed if legislators decide not to wet their pants before the mighty PhRMA, hospital and biotech lobbies — again. I’m not going to put odds on that.
Government workers can start to pay premiums out of their own pockets at rates that begin to approach what those in the private sector pay. I pay 50% of my health care premiums. There is no reason those in government cannot do the same.
EaBo, you made that decision to take a job with a company that only pays 50% of your health cost. If you don’t like that, don’t you ahve the personal liberty to go find a job that offers better health insurance? Why don’t you go to school at nights and become more qualified in your field, so that employers will find your skills more desirable. Then they will offer you a better health plan.
<
p>
It’s time for you to take some personal responsiblity with the decisions you ahve made instead of whining about other people. And you call yourself a conserative.
I have a damn good job and make a damn good wage Frank. But I still pay 50% of my health insurance, as do those who make less at my place of employment. As do many who work in the private sector in the Commonwealth. I have taken personal responsibility(is that your new talking point from “How to talk to a conservative if you must”? You’re using it an awful lot lately).
<
p>
What I don’t get is why the benefits of public employees are so special? Why can’t they be touched. Do we really want to let public employee unions run the Commonwealth and our cities and towns or do we want to take the Commonwealth back? It’s time for the public employees of this state to start learning the real life lesson’s of the real world like those who work in the private sector do.
…I don’t disagree that the unions need to be far more flxible when it comes to health care. I do have a problem with your aggrogant assumption that other folks are getting a better “deal” then you. I know pretty of employers that pay way more than 50% of health care costs. And if you’re advicating that state employees pay only half the health care insurance, just like you…are you also advocating that all state employees get the same pay you get. (And don’t cite the 5% of state employees taht make a lot of money or are supposed no-show jobs. For the most part they are paid way below the private sector.)
I think its a natural reaction. And don’t give me bunk about those in the public sector making less than those in the private sector. Because it’s just that, bunk. The majority of us here in the private sector don’t get guaranteed pensions, every holiday under the sun off, generous vacation time, and most of our benefits paid for. It just doesn’t happen that way anymore. It’s time for public sector employees to accept that the world has changed.
that was you. But as I pay their salary, they could be a little bit more accomodating, no?
<
p>
So instead of channeling your emotions into changing things so that we do have guaranteed pensions, we do have holidays off, we do get generous vacation time, and we do have benefits paid for, you’re instead fighting to take those things away from others?
<
p>
Here’s a tip: taking them away from someone else won’t make them appear for you. In fact, it will probably mean that you get even less, because there will be no market pressure from public unions to compete for you as an employee.
I don’t want every holiday under the sun off. I don’t want public employee benefits. I believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work. I’ve had opportunities to go into the public sector and I’ve turned them down.
<
p>
I don’t think they will magically appear. I don’t want them.
That would save plenty of money, too, wouldn’t it?
<
p>
Listen, I’m all for giving communities and their employees the option of joining the GIC. When there’s a win-win in terms of health benefits for the cost, of course it is worth taking advantage of. But every time I hear this talk about forcing unions into the GIC (whether they like it or not and whether it is abrogating a fairly negotiated contract or not) this sounds less like trying to find a way for municipal government to work in a more efficient and sustainable manner and more like balancing the budget on the backs of municipal workers because they’re convenient targets.
<
p>
And the truth is that pushing unions into the GIC isn’t likely to save money in the overall picture. Quoting from the article: “Medical benefits are a contentious issue during contract negotiations, and unions and the cities and towns battle over premiums and copayments.” My wife is a teacher and if her health plan were as stingy my employer’s (our other option) that would be the equivalent of a 10% cut in her take-home pay for our family. You really think that wouldn’t be an issue in the next round of contract negotiations? And you really believe that if there weren’t some compensating changes in other parts of the benefit package (i.e. like higher salaries or other things that would cost a town money) that there would be no effect on a town’s ability to attract and retain staff?
<
p>
The reality is that a lot of this is a game of musical chairs. Increasing copays and employee contributions doesn’t seem to have done anything to slow the growth in health costs (and since they encourage people to forgo preventative care and go without health insurance I see plenty of reasons why these sorts of measures are actually counterproductive). Where the real cost savings are (for an employer) is in encouraging families like mine to choose the other spouse’s health insurance – because then they’re no longer on the hook for their employer contribution. And right now towns and municipalities are on the losing end of this “beggar-thy-neighbor” policy because they adjust their benefits packages more slowly than private employers can.
<
p>
Having towns and cities race private employers to see who can cut their health benefits fastest isn’t the answer… getting off the employer-provided health insurance treadmill is the only long-run solution.
…like forcing unions into the state health insurance program, I can’t support any of his revenue plans. Period.
… and I mentioned this in the post, but perhaps not clearly enough: The proposal Patrick supports is to require 70% union approval for moving into the GIC. And a number of unions are already on board with that, including the MTA. So even under the weaker proposal, municipalities will save. The question is whether you’re going to force the rest of them into the GIC, like the firefighters.
In other words, the MTA supports putting this to a vote in each city and town, and only allowing those units that can muster a 70% favorable vote to join the G.I.C. That is not being in favor of joining the G.I.C., that is an artful way of being against it.
is that the MTA expects most of its members to support getting into the GIC. Will confirm.
Why the 70% requirement? Why not support a bill that can be put into practice?
1) If a Town buys into the states insurance plan, can they still negotiate the premium split with their employees. My Town currently pays 60% up from 50% a couple of years ago. Would the Town be forced to pay a higher percentage on the hopefully lower premium?
<
p>
2) Would the Town’s group rating be the same as the state’s. According to our Town Administrator (who is very familiar with these issues), municipal employees tend to be older that state employees and he questions whether this means the town’s premium per employee would be higher than the state’s.
<
p>
As always the devil is in the details and I don’t know where to find the answers to these question so I can have an intelligent conversation with our Selectmen and FinCom members.
…Barnstable County already has a health insurance purchasing cooperative. It’s rates are less than the state, since we have only one hospital.
<
p>
So – are WE going to be FORCED into the more expensive GIC plans? If a town/union already has a cheaper alternative, does the governor intend to force them anyways to make up additional premium?
We’re not talking about the cost of health care. We’re talking about the cost of health insurance. My town’s FY08 health insurance costs for some 1,500 employees (and I don’t know how many retirees) is $5.9M, 25% more than FY07. I have no idea how much was spent on actual health care, but I’m sure the insurance companies do.
<
p>
If we want to talk health care, it may very well be more economical for a town to hire its own doctor and provide basic health care that way. There are town nurses hired through the Board of Health, so I don’t see this as much of stretch.
<
p>
All enrollees would receive health care from the town physician’s office. Then, the town could offer an insurance policy which covered only emergency, specialization, and hospitalization.
<
p>