Speaker Dillon proposes ill-advised statewide health plan -- Instead of savings, plan would create massive government bureaucracy
Wed, 07/15/2009 - 23:29 — dpratt
House Speaker Andy Dillon today announced his plans for a single, statewide health insurance plan for Michigan public employees that includes all school employees. Despite the lack of proof that such a plan would save any money, Dillon claims his plan could save as much as $900 million a year.
This ill-advised plan would put Michigan bureaucrats in charge of the health care for school employees and their families. Especially amidst our state budget crisis, now isn’t the time for a massive government-run experiment in health care.
Check out the Detroit Free Press coverage of Dillon’s proposal and MEA’s press release.
Let us know what you think! And make sure to make your feelings known to Speaker Dillon and your representative in Lansing.
Comments
2 weeks later...Still Wrong
My title says it all!
Elephant in the room
In case all of you haven't noticed, Michigan is broke . . . and will remain broke for the foreseeable future. That's a fact. Here's another fact: pooling insurance policies with larger numbers of policy holders lowers insurance costs. Now, if you are an ideologue, then facts probably don't mean much to you . . . . and you'll keep spouting the same tired rhetoric we all hear from the "wing-nuts" on both the right and the left. But you ask the question, "...how much more do you think we can give?" In light of the State's financial crisis, I'm not so sure that it's going to be up to us to give anything . . . . . meaning that with limited funds, the status quo is obviously unsustainable. In other words, resources will be taking from us whether we want to give them up or not, because the State is not only broke . . . . but because we're in a billion-plus deficit for as long as the eye can see. Now, given the two facts listed above (1. We're broke. 2. Pooling policy holders saves money.), why on earth wouldn't the MEA see the writing on the wall and try to engage in a more productive and proactive effort to influence how a State-wide single payer system would work?
The answer to my question is, sadly, is that the folks who run the MEA are bound to behave as any special interest organization would: working not so much for the sake of doing what is right and makes sense, but acting in the "interest" of it's members. Ironically, MEA's old-school "us versus them" modus operandi is no longer in the best interest of its members.
Now I don't think for a second that Andy Dillon's $ 900 million savings is accurate. But even if it's half that amount, it's worth looking into because, frankly, we have no other choice (no matter what propaganda MEA shouts at us). So let's put our antiquated union-speak on the shelf and solve this healthcare problem in a more sensible way that encourages public support, rather than making us all look like obstinate and hysterical partisans.
PS - For those of you who complain that healthcare should be a part of the collective bargaining process, I have two questions for you: 1. What are we going to do when the cost of providing health coverage grows so high that districts simply can't afford to pay it? 2. With a lower cost single-payer State insurance pool taking some financial pressure off districts, do you think that will leave more or less $$ for districts to negotiate union contracts?
Well stated!
Well stated!
health care
Equally as ominous as Mr. Dillon's plan for a single, statewide health insurance plan for Michigan public employees is the health care plan that President Obama's administration is pushing at the National level. The president has admitted that he does not even know what is in the bill. It is alarming to me that our representatives at the National level in both houses and the President make law with bills that they do not even know what they contain i.e., the stimulus bill and now the health care bill.
Do you trust the state?
Do you trust the state that promised under Proposal A our funding would be maintained? Has it? My district and most districts in the state have been having to make major cuts year after year and yet we have no way of increasing funding. We are completely dependent upon the state to increase our general fund. We've cut teaching positions, consolidated school, cut administrative positions, cut field trips, increased our instrucitonal time without increasing our pay, lost planning periods. It goes on and on.
Do you really want your benefits in the hands of the legislature? Do you trust them to maintain them at the current level?
I don't.
The State
You are perceived as part of the state by the public.
I am not a state employee
whatever the public thinks
Dillon health care
"$900 million a year" where did that figure come from? The only way to realize any kind of savings with a pool this large is to SLASH coverage and INCREASE employee contributions. While I know those in the private sector have been feeling this pain, public servants have made concessions at the bargaining table to keep what they feel is important to them. I don't believe there will be any savings, but let's just say for arguments sake there is, where would the $'s saved go? As a taxpayer I don't believe I'll be seeing any kind of rebate, and I don't believe it would go back into the classroom either. I think we can all agree the state is in a financial mess. Let's look at the real problem, Proposal A. Proposal A has done more harm than good in the funding of education. Let's work on finding a stable source of revenue for education. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not only wrong, it won't help turn around Michigan's economy. If we can't trust Lansing to balance the state budget why would we trust them with our health care?
Opposed to Dillon's Plan
I am deeply opposed to Dillon's plan. I have to look at what is best for me and my fellow teachers...which is what is best for everyone in general. When I look at issues like Mental Health parity, I do not trust the state of Michigan. Michigan is one of only 8 states WITHOUT mental health parity laws. That means that it is legal for insurance companies to treat mental illnesses different than physical ones. 42 other states have laws, and that tells me that Michigan is behind the times. The federal government just passed the Mental Health Parity Act which goes into effect in October of 2010. I have more faith that the Federal government would take care of my needs.
Let's be honest here....Dillon is doing this because he wants to be Governor. He wants to hurt the MEA. If he walks like an elephant, and talks like an elephant....it is most likely an elephant. Dillon claims he is a Democrat, but he is attacking MESSA and the members of the MEA like he vacations with the Macinac Center. With this plan, I would not be able to choose or vote on my health care. If I were not happy in my current district, I could always move to another. With this plan, that choice is taken away, because everyone would have the same plan. My rights as a union member are taken away.
I support a Federal plan that is well thought out and does not discriminate. I cannot and will not support a plan that is blindsiding every public school employee to further a political career and agenda.
Are you serious?
I don't understand why Dillon can't be a Democrat if he goes up against MESSA or the MEA? Does this mean that all Democrats MUST support the MEA in all they do? It's this type of thinking that gives the MEA a bad name in the public, especially amongst independents and liberal republicans.
I certainly hope that there is more to being a Union member than just health insurance.
And please, Dillion is not doing this just to hurt the MEA or because he wants to be Governor. Its a solid assumption that a Republican is going to win the Executive mansion at the next election, if only because Granholms track record, in the eyes of the public, has not been stellar. Whether or not its her fault is of no relevance...thats the nature of politics.
Second Paragraph
You're right, I did only focus on the second paragraph of your comment. As a sufferer of anxiety and panic disorder (and a teacher) I do agree that we need a new look at the Mental Health laws in this state. And I was not arguing against that issue.
But your second paragraph is what gets me going (and not just yours). I have no desire to defend Dillons democratic stand...I don't care if he's a democrat or a republican. I just don't see why you brought up his political affiliation in teh first place.
And government run health care is one of the WORST ideas this country could achieve in a long time.
Are YOU Serious x2
I find it interesting that your focus was on my statement about Dillon's partisanship and not my statements on the health care issues like mental health parity. Yes...I am very serious about how that state has handled all programs regarding health care and our lack of legislation surrounding issues that 42 other states have deemed important. Are you serious about health care or in defending Dillon's record as a Democrat?
Same old arguments
These are the same old arguments used against single-payer healthcare and I am very disappointed that now the MEA is now piling on. These are only scare tactics, the truth is that the author of this article is just like the congress. They have health insurance and don't care about those who don't. Single-payer is cheaper and more efficient than private insurance. I also believe that the MEA doesn't want government run health care because they like to think that they have done so well in securing our healthcare and are afraid that without it, they would appear to be doing nothing. I refuse to let my union come out and spread all this fear and lies about government healthcare. There needs to be a forum heald where we can speak directly to those who are deciding to come down on the wrong side of this important issue.
Where does the savings come from?
Most plans area already administered by the Blues; they just cover different things at different rates in different amounts.
For example, BlueCare won't pay for my son's speech therapy but MESSA does even though both are administered by Blue Cross.
So if the administration has already been simplified, where does the savings come from? A loss in coverage.
Where are the savings coming from?
It doesn't state how the plan is going to save 900 million dollars. I can only assume it cuts out the middle man, i.e., the Blues. If that is the case I would sooner see the decisions affecting my health care being made by a government bureaucrat than an employee of a company, (the Blues), bent on making a profit by not granting my physician's request. Think about it, privately run health care costs between 25 to 30 per cent more than a government system. Why are we in the USA ranked 37th in the world for our population? Why do we still have one in six citizens not covered? Go for it, we need universal coverage, whether it comes from our state or from the federal government!
Andy Dillon and health care
Andy Dillon is a bold, outside-the-box thinker, which is desperately needed in desperate times such as these. I am greatly disappointed by the MEA's quick slap at this proposal. Meanwhile, district by district, we are not only losing our health benefits, but we are now more than ever being perceived by the general public as self-serving elitists. We must get rid of the elephant in the room - our fixation on preserving health benefits beyond all else - for the ugly tone of negotiations to return to serving the students' best interest. I firmly believe Speaker Dillon's ideas deserve listening to, else we lose all remaining credibility with the general public.
Dillon's Ideas Have Already Been Listened To...
Dillon's ideas are old, should stay in the box, and are nothing more than republican- public school education hater. This notion that a huge statewide insurance pool would save money has been studied numerous times and has been shot down numerous times as not a good idea. Dillon is doing nothing more than trying to posture himself as a white knight... he is trying to gallop to greatness on the backs of state employees.
I urge everyone that thinks this is a good idea, that thinks teachers are overpaid and under worked, and that teachers have cushy benefits; to take a look at what people with Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in the United States earn on an annual basis. The average American worker with a Master's Degree makes over 80,000 per year; the MI teacher with a Master's Degree averages 55,000 per year. As a public school employee we are grossly underpaid. We deserve the right to negotiate our benefits and the foundation of great public schools is local control. This ill advised idea, at the root of it, ends local control. The last thing the people of this state should want is another mega bureaucracy. I think it is pretty clear that our 80,000 per year legislators cannot run anything... let alone try to run one of the most important things on the planet... our lives!
Statistics?
Ok, two things. First, I'm curious where you got your financial numbers from. And also, to make a better point, perhaps you should show what the Average MICHIGAN employee with a Master's degree makes in comparison to a Michigan teacher with a Masters. Of course the Average American is going to be higher.
Secondly, why do you think Republicans hate public schools? It's this kind of shallow thinking that gives the MEA a bad name. Keep up the good work!
Shallow Thinking???
I don't think teachers who want to defend how much they are underpaid is a shallow concern, and it is pretty evident that Republicans have not been good to public schools. Of course you can't say ALL republicans, but it is well documented with every voucher proposal and charter school endorsement. Typically, those come from the right as I'm sure you know.
I want to know why your answer to every argument is to call us shallow or say we are hurting the image of the MEA for protecting our livelihoods. It is well known that Dillon is not well respected in the democratic party. Many believe that he had to run as a democrat to win in Wayne County. He went up against Andy Meisner constantly when he was a Representative, and Meisner is someone I trust with most issues. I stand by my statement that this is a ploy for him to get elected. I believe whole heartedly that this is a bad idea. I do not trust him to take care of my best interest as a human being. I also respect Republicans like L. Brooks Patterson who is opposed to this plan by the way. The fact that Republicans like Mike Bishop jumped on board makes me even more nervous.
I would rather wait to see what the federal government comes up with.
Not underpaid (at least in this state)
No, I don't find my thinking shallow. However, my answers were the same to all those postings because I was surprised at how partisian the comments really were. I always thought it was just rumor and that the MEA couldn't be THAT partisian. But it appears true - at least from the comments I've read.
I am a public school teacher. I have no problem with a voucher program, although the one that the DeVos family put forth years ago was not a good program in my opinion, so I voted against it (it would have only hurt everyone, and helped hardly anyone).
And I also have to put my foot down and say that the teachers in this state, as a whole, are NOT underpaid. I'm on the West side of the state, maybe its different on the East side. And although we say we work all year round (and many of us do, but I would argue that most don't work nearly as hard in the summer as they do from Sept - June), we get paid very well compared to several other states. More than enough to live on with a family, unless you "need" many items (i.e. new cars, boats, cottages, etc...). I'm in the $50,000 grand range after 6 years of teaching. Many of my college friends are in similar places who are not teachers, and do not have "forced vacations." And thats just salary - that does not include anything I do during the summer on top of it, or any benefits.
Teachers in Michigan are NOT underpaid, at least on this side of the state.
Out of the box?
Reducing benefits to employees is not out of the box. It's standard business practice to reduce labor costs just like offshoring and laying off older employees only to hire cheaper newer ones.
I don't know about your district but in my district we are in contract negotiations and the union has already made it clear the district is planning a net compensation loss either through increasing our insurance premiums or cut in salary or both. We've already taken a pay cut in the form of more instructional time without an increase in pay. We've already reduced the number of teachers through eliminating positions and increasing class size. How much more do you think we have to give?
Festus also had difficulty keeping up with Mr. Dillon
The opinions stated remind me of the Gunsmoke episodes. Festus neither understood Mr. Dillon or could keep up with him. Mr. Dillon, in Michigan, is also our galloping many of you. The real situation is that I have never negotiated with the State for my wages or benefits. I do not receive a State equalized wage. I am in the low rent, west side of the State where my union dues are not adjusted for geography, only my income. Since I do not, and have never negotiated with the State, then why are they determined to control my benefits. My 5 year pay increase has been from .5% to 1.5%, or less than the cost of living. This in an effort to continue my association with an insurance carrier of my choice. In spite of my pay, benefits or package, I do provide what is BEST for students in my classroom. If this seems to be a problem in some locations, then instead of recommending that all teachers should put the "what is best for kids" first, recommend to those teachers that do not, that they seek other employment. I am very tired of legislators wanting to punish the Michigan Teachers Unions by passing a law/bill so that they may attempt to rectify their in-effectiveness by suddenly changing my life. Possibly they should consider some introspection to determine from where the problems originate.