LSJ editorial hits nail squarely on the head

MEA = NRA?

Eric, the MEA is a union, not a PR firm. As much as we want and need public support, our first duty is to our members. And agreeing to let the government decide something as basic as health care coverage is not negotiable. We have to oppose such an idea.

As I've said, next is a statewide salary schedule. Why not? It'll save money.

Which of course would make joining a union worthless. So supporting this plan, even "in concept," puts you squarely in the anti-union/Mackinac Center crowd. Either you're for collective bargaining or against it.

---

by: gregsteimel @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 13:57:18 PM UTC

Scorched earth campaigning...

One of the things I've always thought has made the NRA successful over the last two decades was that it refused to budge an inch and didn't particularly appear to care if its rhetoric came across as insane.  The strategy appeared to be that if they didn't want to debate real and substantive gun control that they'd instead refuse to budge on armor-piercing bullets and background checks, with their fallback line at assault rifles.  No matter how insane it came across to tie armor-piercing bullets and AK-47s to hunting, no matter how many editorial cartoons lampooned the ideas, they'd stick to it and insist they were entirely serious.  Today, gun control is an issue largely won by the NRA.

I assume that the MEA's position is to draw a line across which it won't let anyone cross, but a few yards in front of the real line they won't allow anyone to cross.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 14:48:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and yet...

the same people on the right lining up and wanting to fast-track dillon's plan are the same ones crying that obama needs to SLOW DOWN on his plan.

lol...

---

by: healtHcareforall @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 15:12:53 PM UTC

Did anyone notice...

...that at his press conference yesterday Speaker Dillon threw out the idea that all Michiganders could potentially join his health insurance pool. Now where have I heard the idea of comprehensive health insurance reform before?  Oh, yeah, there's something going on in Washington, DC. It was on TV yesterday.

Maybe someone could introduce Speaker Dillon to the Hon. John Dingell?  Congressman Dingell has a great health care insurance idea too and, gee, he's chief sponsor of national health insurance reform legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Maybe Mr. Dingell can be enlightened by the Dillon plan.  

---

by: LiberalBubba @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 16:56:25 PM UTC

I did not notice that

If health insurance reform falls through in Congress, it'd be nice if the state had a form of a public option.  I think, in fact, that it should be part of the original legislation, 'cause I don't frankly trust these kinds of promises made in press conferences.  Or, as I like to say, With one dollar of action, you can get 10 dollars of talk.

Still, you're right.  I just saw this morning that they're close to a health care reform deal in the Senate.  It might be nice to actually see what Congress produces before we take unilateral action.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 17:18:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Question

The benefit of MESSA is that the insurance rates are negotiated between the union employees and the insurer and are fixed for the life of the contract.

By going off MESSA for private insurers, what this changes is that the negotiations over rates now occurs between the employer and the insurers.

Result: Employers reduce the amount they pay or increase copays which shift the cost of health insurance onto their employees at greater and greater amounts.

So my question is: Are these school districts actually saving money, or are they cooking the books by shifting health care costs onto the backs of teachers, thereby making the environment more unfavorable for teachers in Michigan?

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 17:11:09 PM UTC

Right now, or under this plan?

Presumably what would happen is that teachers would take serious cuts in benefits and probably pay more for insurance.  But, rather than going through the local school district, it'd go through the state.  The local school district would save money when the bargaining unit's contract expires and it enters into this new framework.

Of course, this would allow the state to justify cutting per-pupil funding because the money it currently gives local school districts to eventually pay for health benefits would stay at the state level.  As I said, districts that have done smart things with health insurance would be penalized under this, because the cut in money would presumably be across-the-board.  It's a way to save money by rewarding failure.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 17:24:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What about now?

Are the school districts "saving" by simply allowing themselves to be the insurer's contact re: costs?

Are they saving money by shifting costs onto faculty by, say, changing the copays?

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 04:13:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It varies from district to district

You could make the argument that the administration isn't shifting costs onto the faculty, but that the faculty are allowing themselves to take an increasing amount of the burden.

One union might bargain away higher co-pays within MESSA for pay raises.  One union might negotiate leaving MESSA to prevent layoffs (this is what happened in St. Louis a few years ago).  Others, where the district has some extra cash, might use it to beef up benefits as a teacher recruiting tool.  The idea that you can say, "Teachers have benefits such-and-such in excess of the private sector" is a bit misleading, because it varies from district to district; and the idea that teachers overall have made no concessions -- if anyone is really making that point -- is downright silly.

The thing that has been behind the labor strife, at least here where I live, is that districts can't negotiate long-term contracts because they don't know what numbers to expect from Lansing.  So, the teachers come to the table with one set of projected revenue numbers; the administration comes to the table with a different one.

I think, ultimately, whatever comes out of Lansing needs to address this, because the state hasn't been at all responsive to the problem of varying per-pupil funding.  In fact, I'm surprised that people who get up in arms over the loss of local control when you suggest that municipal governments combine services where prudent aren't up in arms about the potential of this, too.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:19:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

All the more reason

to remove health care from employment with a national health care system.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 16:08:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, I agree...

A national universal system that strips health care away from employment and makes it a right as a citizen is the way to go.  That's why I think this idea ought to be put on the back burner until we get a better idea what if anything Washington plans to do.  Coincidentally, that ought to take about the same amount of time it takes to balance the state's budget without doing it in a rush.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 16:14:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

my theory...

...is that teachers will now simply bargain higher straight wages to offset any cuts in health care. for years they've been forgoing raises to keep good health insurance--once they no longer have to do that, they'll concentrate on getting it back on the salary end.

6 of one, half dozen of the other...

---

by: healtHcareforall @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 17:41:58 PM UTC

It depends on what the state does to per-pupil funding...

You're right, this takes away one of the tools districts could use to keep salary costs in line.  One of those articles floating around about education groups backing this made abundantly clear that this does impact collective bargaining, because one of the groups said that they spend weeks discussing health care issues.

On the other hand, this does nothing to address one of the other sticking issues to local bargaining, which is that increasingly districts are negotiating contracts without any idea what the state will do to per pupil funding over the years.  It changes, because the economy has gotten steadily worse.  So, contract talks are conducted like basically everything else that relies on state funding ... guesswork.  That guesswork is really what drags out negotiations, because no one can agree on budget numbers.  When they could, districts and teachers unions could settle on something relatively quickly and amicably.

The real question here is how much money then could be saved if the state could provide a more reliable funding picture more than six months into the future.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 18:01:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i have a theory...

i have a theory districts really don't want to know the financial picture 100 percent. why? it allows them to play the "the sky MIGHT fall" at the bargaining table. it'd be a lot harder to stick it to teachers if, for example, it was KNOWN a bunch of money was coming down the pike in each of the next three years.

think about it.  

---

by: healtHcareforall @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 17:29:01 PM UTC