Dillon's Health Plan: Devastating for Michigan's Public Service Employees

I would be interested to know (4.00 / 2)

have the legislators themselves sacrificed any pay lately. if not why? would the legislature consider a 25% pay cut? would they consider making their own pension and insurance benefits comparable to the private sector?

---

by: jsalera @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 08:46:11 AM CDT

Don't Be So Hasty to Knock Dillon's Proposal Down (4.00 / 4)

The MEA doesn't like it because of this:

The union's insurance arm, the Michigan Education Special Services Association, which covers more than half of the teachers in Michigan, would have to compete with other insurers in a new health care program administered in Lansing.

Then their spokesman said,

"This is a massive expansion of government at a time when we can't even get the budget balanced," said MEA spokesman Doug Pratt. "These savings aren't here and the taxpayers shouldn't fall for it. Why would public school employees trust the health of their families to a state bureaucracy in Lansing?"

The teachers union is complaining about an expansion in government? That's a laugh. I don't see the MEA calling for the privatization of our public school system. Why should teachers trust MESSA or Blue Cross/Blue Shield for that matter? Bureaucrats are already administering health care coverage at insurance companies throughout this state and across the country.

Standardizing health care coverage for public employees will NOT "strip local school districts and local governments of the ability to make decisions regarding their employees and their communities." It's one item on the agenda, Health Care costs, which have risen at a pace far more than inflation during the past decade. Those costs are crippling state and local governments, and businesses, and pushing people into bankruptcy.

The state will not be running the program. Dillon isn't calling for the creation of a state-run health care system. He wants to standardize the costs for everyone in order to gain long-term savings.

The fact is there's a $1.8 billion deficit in our state's budget. Legislative pay cuts won't fix it (I'm all for that), no matter how symbolic they might be. As tough as it is to ask in a state with 15% unemployment, everyone is going to have to share even more pain, either through pay freezes, furlough days, cuts to programs we all love and hate, and require rethinking how we do things. Pooling resources into one state plan to standardize health care coverage is not inherently a bad idea. It's worth examining before we start lobbing criticisms at it.

I find it difficult to be against a proposal like this when so many progressives, like myself, are pushing for Single Payer health care at the national level.

P.S. For Doug Pratt to understand why public school employees would trust the health of their families to a state bureaucracy in Lansing, he needs to look no further than the State Board of Education and the MEA, the two entities headquartered in Lansing and East Lansing (respectively) in whom the people put their trust for the education of their children.  

---

by: rich @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 09:22:50 AM CDT

Single payer in a single State worries me a lot (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure that the State of Michigan, with its structural problems, is the place to start a single payer public employee system.  The devil will be in the details, but I'm not sure how this helps without dramatically cutting benefits to families.  Now, raising the income tax back to 4.3, and letting almost all of us claim it as a deduction on our federal returns, that makes sense to me.  So does closing the tax loop holes that add up to more than the State takes in for revenue.

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 10:03:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

are you saying (0.00 / 0)

dillon is proposing single payer?

---

by: jsalera @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 13:43:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There are no details yet for this program... (0.00 / 0)

I was just at a university board of trustees meeting where this question was asked of the president, and she said it might be a good idea or, it might not, depending on the details.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 14:52:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is not single-payer (0.00 / 0)

Dillon's plan would still have every unit of government and and every employee group be the payer. This an anti-union agenda run by the Right-to-Work crowd. It will strengthen the hand of the enemies of single-payer by weakening the strongest voices for real health care reform - unions and progressives.

---

by: TomPaine09 @ Sun Jul 19, 2009 at 09:14:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Taxes (0.00 / 0)

I'm all for raising the Income Tax and raising gas taxes (or even going to a Graduated Income Tax, but that would take a change to the state's constitution, as I understand it). I have my doubts that those will be enough to cover the gap. So I don't see the harm in considering Dillon's proposal.  

---

by: rich @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 07:37:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You Are Correct Re; Graduated Income Tax (4.00 / 1)

The current constitution specifically prohibits a graduated income tax under Article IX Section 7

---

by: boehmianrhapsody @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 15:32:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't take MESSA from me (4.00 / 1)

Teachers currently have a choice of plans at different prices to meet different needs.  What Dillon is proposing will remove that choice and reduce our coverage.  

MESSA is the only insurance option that pays for speech therapy for my preschooler.  The Blues said they would and then denied coverage.  

The Blues also refused to pay for more than 18 visits for a visiting nurse for me to care for a large open wound forcing my husband to clean and pack it when he was home and when he was traveling it went uncared for.  Nine weeks with an open wound without professional care.

Finally consider this, the state promised to at least maintain funding for schools under Prop A.  They haven't.  How can we trust them to properly fund our benefits?

---

by: Lisa @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 14:32:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You said the magic words - "National Level" (0.00 / 0)

This is not an issue that can or should be solved at the state level. With a single-payer system likely to come out from the Obama Administration in the near future, you have to ask yourself, why is Dillon trying to preempt it?

Progressives are for a federal single-payer program. Progressives in Michigan are also AGAINST this proposal, don't you find that telling?

And frankly what scares me more, and I think should raise a red flag or two for everyone - is that all of this was done in secret. His caucus didn't know about it, the law enforcement, firefighters, teachers - none of them were given a heads up.

The fact that you've got puzzled looks coming from most of what are Dillon's typical allies should be telling enough - something stinks.

If we really want to save money, let's talk about rescinding $400 million in corporate loopholes.

And lastly - why are we asking groups, like firefighters, like police officers, like teachers to already shoulder an even bigger burden when they get paid pretty poorly to begin with.  

I want to change the world, not help people adjust to it. - Millie Jeffrey, MI - National Women's labor and Democratic activist, Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient

---

by: LiberalLucy @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 15:02:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A couple issues... (4.00 / 3)

Lucy, I have mixed feelings about this proposal as I've indicated below.  But I also take issue with a couple of things you say.

First, you say that Progressives in Michigan are against this proposal.  How can you say that?  Many of the progressives I spoke with yesterday and today actually favor this proposal.  Rich, for example.  You make it sound like there is a universally held opinion from the left that this proposal is a bad idea.  Remember that the Democratic Party is the big-tent party and Progressives are people with open minds.  We don't do group-think.  There will never be an issue that one can say Progressives are AGAINST.

Second, you say that "all of this was done in secret".  All of what?  Dillon threw out an idea to the members of the House Democratic Caucus yesterday.  He's indicated that he'll sit down with labor before he moves forward on it.  You make it sound like legislation has been developed that is going to run in the House next week.  There is no "all of this".  Dillon was simply giving voice to one of the suggestions that came out of the Government Efficiency Task Force created after the last budget crisis.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 21:21:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Explain some of this then... (0.00 / 0)

If the Speaker is so intent on being inclusive, why ban people from his press conference?  

Why leak his proposal to the Free Press so that his caucus learned about it on their Web site rather than from their leader?  

Why have Web sites built and launched within hours of the announcement without anyone's knowledge?

None of that sounds particularly big tent to me...  

---

by: dougpratt @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 21:41:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Because the Speaker (0.00 / 0)

wants to run for another office...and this is a press stunt.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 21:29:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am against this (0.00 / 0)

It will hurt families.
It will hurt my family.
It will hurt my son.

The state cannot be trusted to maintain our benefits; they certainly haven't maintained our school funding.

---

by: Lisa @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 05:40:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Solution (0.00 / 0)

It's not a solution to the health care problem. It's a proposal to cut the costs the state has to pay for state employee health care.

So far the only progressives I see who are against the proposal are, you, nominally Eric, DJ, and lots of MEA supporters.

There was nothing secretive about it. I could understand all the alarm being raised if this proposal was already a package of bills, written by lobbyists, being rammed through the House with little consideration from those who would be affected (see the BCBS bills). But that is not the case here.

Dillon isn't really known for ramming legislation through. People should ease up a bit before automatically slamming the idea until there are some actual bills.

Even if we managed to close the "$400 million in corporate loopholes" that still leaves $1.3 to $1.4 billion that has to be dealt with.  

---

by: rich @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 07:34:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

... (4.00 / 1)

Standardizing health care coverage for public employees will NOT "strip local school districts and local governments of the ability to make decisions regarding their employees and their communities."

It does.  Back in the day, this is one way districts would compete for teachers.  Of course, back then districts could raise revenue locally by going to voters with a millage request.

Today, those same districts are increasingly pushing for higher co-pays and premiums, or during negotiations opting out of MESSA for competing plans.

I haven't seen any details on this particular plan, but I would be dubious of a health care plan that actually made people's coverage worse.  I mean, everyone realizes that we're in a health care crisis right now, and it seems very strange to me that we're looking at taking active steps that could make things worse for thousands of people.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 15:11:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It Doesn't (0.00 / 0)

It removes one part from the equation. One piece, btw, that would also be taken away if a Single Payer system were ever to be implemented on a national level. That still leaves plenty to negotiate about (wages, hours, work rules, sick days, vacation days, etc.).

---

by: rich @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 07:04:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But it does (4.00 / 1)

Health care isn't just another component to teacher contract negotiations, it's usually one or two of the main sticking points.  Unions can make concessions on health care to maybe get a little extra in their paycheck; or they can make salary concessions to have co-pays that are slightly lower.  Or, the union can look at the numbers and volunteer to leave MESSA to save jobs.  When you remove health care decision making from this equation, you reduce local flexibility to negotiate overall compensation packages.

Aside from suspecting that a lot of the support for centralizing this has more to do with hostility towards the MEA than sound policy making, I really have no opinion one way or the other.  As you pointed out, single payer will already reduce local decision making in this regard.  And, we're just simply going to have to develop some kind of universal health care.

Absent details, I really have no opinion on this idea.  It could be a good way to save money across the board, to preserve other services.  It could also exempt enough different unions, for whatever reason, to be functionally useless.  It could also be a trial balloon.  What it does represent, however, is a trade off.  Local bargaining units give up a significant chip at the table.  If the payout for the public is large enough...

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:16:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The easiest solution to the high costs (0.00 / 0)

that the Speaker could address is to simply pass a law that requires insurance companies to put all of their insured into a single pool for the entire state...thereby spreading the costs associated with care across a larger group.

Plus, not allow insurers to refuse people for pre-existing conditions.

This two thing alone would do much to clean up the costs problems.

Better yet, put every citizen in the state into a single insurance plan that covers critical care, and give the government the power to negotiate with providers for costs and simplify paperwork for doctors and let everyone else get a much cheaper plan for preventative care...

And don't forget dental...we are starting to get like Britain!

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 21:34:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rich, I'm so sick of hearing that. (4.00 / 2)

As tough as it is to ask in a state with 15% unemployment, everyone is going to have to share even more pain, either through pay freezes, furlough days, cuts to programs we all love and hate, and require rethinking how we do things.

Rich, you know you're my buddy but I'm so sick of hearing people say this about other people's pay and benefits.  The truth is that the only people who have been asked to sacrifice anything in this economy are the people who weren't lucky enough to be so rich as to be recession-proof.

We're always the first one's to starve and the first one's to die and I'm sick of hearing that the middle class has to sacrifice while wealthy assholes get to live like there's nothing wrong with the world.

In the meantime, I can't afford my own fucking house.

Putting conservatives in charge of our government makes about as much sense as GM hiring a CEO who hates cars.

---

by: djtyg @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 01:26:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I reallly don't get why people aren't standing up for labor (4.00 / 2)

Our country is in the process of an enormous transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper class through labor arbitrage.  Offshoring, laying off older workers to replace with younger staff, cutting benefits and pay, and providing part time instead of full time work.

There are companies all over this country who are doing fine but using it as an excuse to cut their labor costs.  Again.

For some reason, Americans are letting them.  If we don't stand up for our pay and our benefits, who will?  If we don't say that the destruction of the middle class ends with us, who will?  

If we give in and allow them to slash our compensation, what's to stop the next group?  They'll be saying teachers had to cut so I guess we will too?  

NO!

Wages have fallen in real terms for several decades now.  Time to put an end to it.

Our economy won't recover if no one can spend anything outside of health care.

---

by: Lisa @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 05:46:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Understand (0.00 / 0)

I'm sick of hearing that, too. I don't like writing it. But with 15% unemployment (and climbing) our state is also looking at a significant decline in tax revenues even as we try to fill the budget hole. In other words, it's only going to get worse.

There is also no way to make a tax increase palatable to the Republican-controlled Senate without cuts of one form or another. Any tax increase that can somehow be passed is not going to be enough to cover the gap between revenues and expenditures. More cuts will have to come from somewhere. Ever-increasing Health Care costs are a prime target.

Sorry, dj, but we're going to have to disagree on this one.

---

by: rich @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 07:11:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Grow a pair in Lansing (0.00 / 0)

and get a progressive tax system in place. And don't wimp out with the high end at 5% either....it should be 10%.

Dick DeVos isn't paying enough money!

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 21:37:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Courage (4.00 / 1)

There's very little of it in Lansing.

---

by: rich @ Sun Jul 19, 2009 at 09:35:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Or Washington (4.00 / 1)

for that matter...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sun Jul 19, 2009 at 17:33:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a bad idea, why? (4.00 / 4)

First off, it's really great to hear the MEA's spokesman spouting the same lame talking points as Glenn Beck. Really first class. Maybe the teachers union can next demand to see Speaker Dillon's birth certificate and send him tea bags.

Second, this offers a way for the state to trim significant costs without shedding employees or cutting into essential services to citizens. Everyone is going to take a hit in order to fix this budget crisis.

Not only does this potentially save  the state millions of dollars but, if this is a Democratic idea, it makes a future round of tax hikes that much more political palatable. And let's be honest, to balance the budget and still have paved roads, some kind of tax increase will be required.

Third, I think this benefits older communities and school districts with larger legacy costs. Think Warren versus Chippewa Valley. If retiree health care costs are funded through a statewide program, it may create a more equal playing field of older, denser (therefor more environmentally sustainable) communities to retain and attract citizens.

Obviously the devil will be in the details but props to Speaker Dillon for putting forth an interesting idea to help solve our state's budget crisis. It's about time someone offered a solution other than "Tax Cuts Uber Alles" or Michael Bay films.

If the public employee unions want to effectively represent their membership then they should get in on the ground floor and ensure a statewide health plan continues provide quality, affordable care to public employees.

---

by: Jeff Wattrick @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 10:21:06 AM CDT

You are shedding essenrial services to citizens (0.00 / 0)

Our teachers will lose benefits

---

by: Lisa @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 14:33:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mixed feelings (4.00 / 4)

Having grown up in a union family where all my siblings and I are public employees, I have a lot of concerns about impacting collective bargaining rights for public employees.  However, given the state's economic situation, it's hard to knock Dillon's proposal.  The alternative is laying off younger teachers with resulting larger class sizes.  Still, I'm not going to attack the MEA and AFT.  The unions are just doing their job protecting their members.

And Rich is correct.  In a year or so, all this may not matter.  It appears we're going to have a federal public option for health care and I'm guessing it's going to be a tough sell to taxpayers to allow public employees to collectively bargain for a private healthcare alternative.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 12:00:50 PM CDT

Efficiency and savings...I think not. (4.00 / 2)

Speaker Dillon's plan would be all well and good -- IF THERE WERE ANY SAVINGS.

All these employees are already in huge pools -- BC/BS, Aetna, PCP, MESSA, etc.  You can't just lump these folks into a bigger pools and expect more savings -- the efficiencies have already been gained.

The ONLY way to save money is massive cuts to employee benefits -- employees who, by the way, have already saved the state millions in pay cuts and health care reductions.

Personally, I'm all for our government providing access to health care for everyone.  But this isn't what the Speaker is trying to do -- he's trying to balance the budget on the backs of public employees for his own political gain.

---

by: dougpratt @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 13:50:46 PM CDT

Question (0.00 / 0)

If part of the price for implementing Single Payer Health Care nationwide was the dismantling of MESSA, would the MEA be willing to do that?

---

by: rich @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 06:59:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Government is Big Enough (0.00 / 0)

After sitting on the sidelines lurking since the budget crisis a couple of years ago, I can no longer sit here silently. What is Speaker Dillon proposing? That the state can manage mine and my family's health care? That the government is better equipped to provide, what? Better care, more coverage, saving who knows how much. According to the Freep Dillon doesn't even know how much health insurance for public employees currently cost...

The cost of health insurance for public employees across Michigan is currently estimated between $4.5 billion and $7 billion a year, said Dillon aide Kate Kohn-Parrott.

$2.5 billion is a big gap...let alone knowing what it WILL cost. I want to know how. How can the State of Michigan, which has been in financial crisis for years now, take care of our health needs? And you noticed I am not even saying anything about efficiency! I don't trust the government to handle much of anything efficiently.

Where does this stop? I don't need any more bureaucracy in my life. It seems that the state government has it's own mess to clean up and needs to focus on that and certainly not at the expense of the lowest paid and hardest working. We can't fix the health care crisis here in Michigan. It is a national issue that has gotten out of hand. Dillon leave it alone, leave us public employees alone. We have already given and we have nothing left to give.

---

by: terrie @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 19:14:49 PM CDT

You must not have had to deal with (0.00 / 0)

a healthcare provider if you think government bureaucracy is the bigger evil...

I pray you never have to.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 21:40:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dillon's Health Plan For Michigan Wrong!!! (4.00 / 1)

As a public school teacher in Michigan, I am apalled that Representative Dillon would propose such a plan for public school employees.  The plan that he is proposing is no cost savings to the taxpayers of Michigan.  Over the past several years, many plans like this have shown no savings at all.  

Most public school employees have done their part in helping share in the cost of health care.  Many employees have taken little or no raises over the years to help pay for health care costs.  In my school district, to help share in the cost, we pay for a portion of our health care each year.  

This will actually cost the state of Michigan more money in the long run.  

---

by: fburger1974 @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 22:46:25 PM CDT

Health care plan for teachers by Dillion is bad idea (4.00 / 1)

I've been following the debate over the recent bill proposed by Rep Dillon (D) of Redford, Mi. regarding state run health care for school employees.  While I support Barack Obama, and the idea of a national health care system, I am in total opposition to the bill (Dillon's) as currently envisioned.  This state is in serious trouble financially, given the 15% unemployment (rising still as I write this comment), bankruptcy of 2 of the big 3, as well as their suppliers, its no wonder those legislators in Lansing are running scared.  They know that when things are real bad, those in power usually get voted out.  
In an attempt to balance a huge budget deficit, Dillon, a democrat - though he seems more like a closet republican with his ideas of union busting, seeks to balance the budget on the backs of k-12 teachers.  As a current college professor, and a former middle school science teacher (k-12) out of state, reading the news I know how bad this economy is, with schools closing, layoffs of teachers, retiree buy outs offered, and a shady plan to use public funding for private schools (voucher plan).  Slowly our rights as union members have been under assault in this nation, and this state in particular.  Just look at the recent Mike Rogers (R) bill to make teachers whom strike lose their K-12 certification!  Only a republican would come up with that kind of idea!  Its pure union busting by all counts!
To continue, as members of unions in this state, we have negotiated our own insurance, usually some version of BCBS, which to me is OK.  if it aint broke, don't fix it is the old motto.  And yet, the state wants to take away our negotiated benefits, and create a state run agency that homogenizes health care for all in a one-size-fits-all approach.  Not only does this not meet the needs of diverse areas within this state, I truly do not believe it will work here.  If it is a given that there is a huge budget deficit, then what makes one think that it won't get worse?  And if it does, and the state runs our insurance, at what point do they decide, sometime down the road, to cut every ones benefits, little by little, but by bit, until nothing is left.  Or worse, imagine this state ends up like California (very doable if the Republicans get control of both branches of government).  California is practically bankrupt, and is issuing IOUs, and making people work for free.  In this future scenario, all us teachers may end up losing all health care.  And where does it stop?  In Alaska, where I officially reside (here on a sabatical you could say)!, there is no retirement program for all new k-12 teachers - its all some stock market fancy stuff.  Gee, we know what happens when public money gets put into the stock market - went from 14000 down to sub 7000 in less than 2 years.  It doesnt take a rocket scientist to realize that this is a real bad idea.  That kind of bad idea, is what Dillon proposes here in Michigan.  A state that could go bankrupt in the future, may end up divesting itself of all our health care.  what would be our recourse?  Strikes?  Can't do that!  We'd all lose our k-12 license!  Union busting for sure, just like Reagan and his PATCO days (the air traffic controllers, if you recall).  
I urge all MEA members to call your Michigan reps and urge them to vote this down.  Not only that, I would urge you all to contact Rep Dillon, and let him know you want him to step down.
While on the surface this seems like a good idea (health care for all employees), the TRUE meaning of this bill, is to reduce costs to the state... which has been the republican dream for years, when they got the individual health care data for all Mi public school employees a few years ago.... ever since then, they have sought to reduce costs.
These costs, were earned by us K-12 teachers, by working over 20-30 years and then retiring, or by going to school, taking out loans, getting a cert, and starting in the classroom.  We make lots of sacrifices to teach.  And I won't even begin to discuss the disparity in wages between part time college professors whom make only 2-3000 per class per term, while their full time colleagues pull in 60-100,000 per year, plus benies and full retirement.
In closing, the plan put forth by Dillon is a bad plan, meant to reduce the power of the unions, take away our hard barganined for and earned rights due us, and is a smoke screen to just pass the buck to future generations, and possibly default on it like California.  
While we need National Health care for those of us not covered by insurance, those of us whom already have it should not let this bill pass.  We need to be activist in our aims to target specific reps that do union busting activities, and issue recall motions against them.  They need to remember they work for the little guy, not big business.  And while we're at it, urge Rogers to not go forward with his bill, calling for yanking of k-12 licenses when striking.  We need our workers rights back!  We should have the right to strike!  Check out the workplace blog, for these kind of similar themes.
have a great weekend all.  Remember that only true democrats care about the little guy.... anyone that cares more about money, business, profits, and maximizing profit/costs ratios, is a true capitalist, and therefore quacks like a republican.  
If they want to really save some money, they should work part time (oh, they do that!), reduce their salary to the average GDP of people in Michigan, and give up their benefits too!  Teachers dont teach for the money (most of us anyway, we are there for the students, not the money), but we do expect to be looked after and treated fairly.

---

by: collegeprof86 @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 23:01:24 PM CDT

You said it... (0.00 / 0)

While on the surface this seems like a good idea (health care for all employees), the TRUE meaning of this bill, is to reduce costs to the state...

First, all state employees already have health insurance.

Second, there is no bill. It's a proposal.

Third, we have to reduce costs because our state is taking in less and less revenue to pay for the services it provides, along with the salaries and benefits of its employees.

---

by: rich @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 07:19:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This appears to be very good news ... (0.00 / 0)

for John Cherry.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 19:58:01 PM CDT

Dillon/Bishop: Strange Bedfellows (0.00 / 0)

If you read the proposal you will find that the way costs will be cut is by reducing services and coverage. To get to the real cost savings, you must first address the control insurance companies have over health care in Michigan. BCBS controls over 80% of health insurance policies in here.

Dillon cites a study which highlights the cost differences between public and private health insurance costs and comes up with the idea that public employees get too many health care benefits, so they must be brought more in-line with fewer benefits and coverages that the private employer provides.

Real cost savings will not be seen until we get insurance companies like BCBS and AETNA out the business of making billions of dollars in profits from the illness and infirmity of the American people.

My favorite part of the document is where he cites all the people who are getting massages without a prescription and having them covered under their health insurance policy.

It's got that old Republican chestnut of the "Welfare Cadillac Woman" ripping us all off, kinda feel to it.

This proposal is just one more attempt to sabotage unions and the workers they represent

This proposal needs to stopped now before any more money is spent on it.


Grace and Peace

---

by: Grace and Peace @ Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 11:42:42 AM CDT