100 Comments - AC - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 11:09 am: Please governor, don’t insult those of us living downstate by attempting to be folksier than you actually are. Embrace yourself, your own background and allow us to focus on the content of your address rather than how you deliver it. - Commonsense in Illinois - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 11:15 am: Wouldn’t it be swell if the General Assembly broke out in song and sang Happy Birthday to the Governor? Then again, maybe not… - Stuff Happens - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:00 pm: Hey, I saw Evelyn Sanguinetti. Does that mean six more weeks of winter or something? - Nearly Normal - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:02 pm: Rich and Amanda V–great tag team on Illinois politics! - William j Kelly - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:08 pm: We gatta be thinkin and willin? I am thinkin there has to be some money in the budget for a speech therapist. - PMcP - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:10 pm: It is infuriating hearing all the missing ‘g’s in his speech. - Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:11 pm: The “G” thing is weird. He has perfect diction except for the G thing. - Nearly Normal - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:13 pm: Stop the droppin’ of the g please! It is so demeaning to the rest of us. Other Dartmouth grads must be cringin’ to hear you. - Stuff Happens - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:16 pm: Since when are pensions untaxed? That was misleading — there’s a federal government over the state, bud… - foster brooks - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:21 pm: Tier 2 DOA - Anonish - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:21 pm: Maybe he is dropping the “g”s as symbolism for all the Gs he’s willing to drop on pushing his agenda/ - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:25 pm: There was the right’s laundry list of reforms … - Nearly Normal - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:27 pm: Nobody clapped for the Term Limits Amendment. Wonder why? Self-preservation. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:27 pm: == Tier 2 DOA == Yes, but until the IL SC says so, he can count the savings in his “balanced” budget - How Ironic - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:29 pm: Not much there. Essentially, give up your authority, and let King Brucie move money around as I see fit. We’ll slash everything possible, and after the state burns down, we’ll hold a bake sale to raise money for a fire hose, to prevent such a meltdown in the future. But by God, we’ll not raise a dime of revenue before the fire. - Amalia - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:29 pm: fun thing caught on the feed at the outset, believe from the Madigan area as it was after he spoke, someone saying “Ok no more clapping now. The last time you were clapping.” - D.P.Gumby - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:29 pm: Every time he drops a “g” an agency gets cut… - Nearly Normal - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:31 pm: If you were taking a drink for every dropped g, there will be no work out of you for the rest of the day! - Wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:32 pm: Strange that a dude who made a lot of money can talk about state government — outside its core functions — as an engine of economic growth. That Blago must have been a whale of a governor then, because things were booming during most of his time in office. All without right to work, or changes in workers comp, UI, tort reform, etc. - foster brooks - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:32 pm: Rnug he’s banking on the union to bargain away our pensions. …guess what I wont - Amalia - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:34 pm: Loivin’ the Rich and Amanda show! - Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:34 pm: Is there any case law on forcing current employees to switch from a pension to another retirement plan? - blankster - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:37 pm: No word on taxing retirement/pension income? I see discussions about that bringing 2 billion alone. - Higher Ed - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:38 pm: Huge cuts to higher ed but no mention? - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:41 pm: == Is there any case law on forcing current employees to switch from a pension to another retirement plan? == Not that I remember off the top of my head from my reading. Almost all the previous changes were only applied to new hires going forward or, in one instance I can remember about 1971/72, current employees were given a VOLUNTARY choice between remaining on the State only system or switching to the consolidated State / Social Security system (now known as Tier 1). - redleg - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:42 pm: Our new governor looks pretty old in the face for only 58. He’ll look a lot older after the ILSC reform decision. I’m not surprised pension reform was part of his statement. Know what Bruce? Bring it! Most of us retirees have lived through tougher times than you”ll ever imagine. There’s nothing you can do to me that my country hasn’t already tried. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:43 pm: == he’s banking on the union to bargain away our pensions == Based on what I’ve read, your pension is an INDIVIDUAL right that the unions can’t bargain away. - -retired state worker - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:47 pm: I wonder if the sign language interpreter behind him drops of G’s when signing..he really looks like a clown - foster brooks - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:50 pm: RNUG what was cullertons pension bill? It had the backing of unions - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:52 pm: Sounds like both Speaker Madigan and President Cullerton aren’t willing to include the proposed $2.2B “pension reform” savings in calculating the FY16 budget. - Anon1234 - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:53 pm: Any explanation how his pension reform would save money this budget year? I don’t see how that is possible without reducing payments or health benefits to current retirees. Unless he is saying the state would contribute less in matching funds? - dupage dan - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:54 pm: Madigan is skeptical about Rauner counting on pension relief in his budget. That’s rich. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:55 pm: == what was cullertons pension bill == It was the original SB-1 before Madigan gutted it and replaced it with the one currently in the courts. To summarize, Cullerton’s SB-1 was a FORCED choice between keeping your health insurance or keeping your 3% AAI. It wasn’t constitutional either … as Kanerva has subsequently shown us, but the unions signed on to it, IMO, believing it was the best deal the unions could reach. - Wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:58 pm: DD, why is that rich? Potential savings of SBI weren’t baked into the budget. A full boat contribution for your pension was made. - Soccermom - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 12:59 pm: I am heartsick and angry. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:03 pm: Have to wonder if his “Switch existing State employees to Tier 2 on July 1″ proposal is a ploy to get a lot of the existing Tier 1 employees to retire immediately. - Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:04 pm: Soccermom, at least your heartsickness and anger was obtained at a very high cost. - Anotherretiree - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:06 pm: Curious if the switch also removes the rule of 85. Make them work till 67 ??? I assume the 700 million in Healthcare savings will hit current workers and non Medicare retirees July 1. Medicare retirees will get their “present” Jan 1 - Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:09 pm: Have to wonder if his “Switch existing State employees to Tier 2 on July 1″ proposal is a ploy to get a lot of the existing Tier 1 employees to retire immediately. RNUG, maybe, but I don’t see the logic. A large infusion of current pension obligations doesn’t seem like the best medicine at this time. And the employees or unions might likely get a court order requiring the difference in Tier 1 and Tier 2 to be placed in escrow, eliminating any budget savings while this too is slogged out for 2 years in the courts (the current case doesn’t directly address this issue as you and I have discussed). - Anotherretiree - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:12 pm: Not much difference in Quinn’s budget which ignored the tax rate change, and Rauner’s budget that counts on a pension change with no court challenge. - Soccermom - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:12 pm: Six degrees, I’ve been heartsick and angry since the election. - Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:13 pm: Curious if the switch also removes the rule of 85 Pretty sure the courts would look at this as a diminishment, limiting potential future pension earnings below what they would have been…I also see the same reasoning for switching current employees to Tier 2. But who knows, until the questions are actually in front of the court. - Anon1234 - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:13 pm: Rnug, there are few Tier 1 people left eligible to retire. A lot retired last year on the belief that pension benefits were less likely to be changed once you are retired. There are still some left hanging on, but from what Rauner said, benefits already earned won’t be changed, so retiring now won’t protect anything different. I’m wondering if this is more bargaining leverage for the afscme contract. Until it gets a solid legal analysis, I’m not sure how much of a bargaining chip it is though. I found it particularly amusing when he said it will take good faith negotiations. - Dantheman - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:13 pm: All Tier Ones move to Tier Two still runs into that “shall not diminish or impair” pension clause - Midway Gardens - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:15 pm: Governor is following through just like his role models. But this isn’t what the State will end up with, the legislature will end up owning an increase in taxes. To get the pension changes, would you have to fire everyone and rehire? I’ve seen that at private companies where there is a take over. I.e. you are fired but you can have your old position back under a new terms. Is that possible with the State? - Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:23 pm: ==Madigan and Cullerton on the same page re: Rauner’s pension idea. Incorporating potential savings from it in budget is “reckless action.”== Did they really say this? Nothing is more reckless than passing a budget like the current one we have. They are the standard bearers for budgetary ==reckless action==. - Finally Out (and now very glad to be) - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:23 pm: RNUG @1:03 Disclaimer, my position was a union title. I left earlier than I wanted for three primary reasons. 1. Felt Rauner had a good chance to win and just didn’t have a good feeling about staying around for that. (Confirmed) 2. I did not want to be around for another contract negotiations which could get very ugly. (Last one bordered on that) 3. Pension legislation to reduce benefits (happened and being fought) Occasionally talk to people that are still “in” and there is much talk about retiring as soon as possible. Whether or not that happens is to be seen, but people are talking. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:25 pm: == there are few Tier 1 people left eligible to retire == There might be more than you think still hanging around. I know of some that have been on the fence for a while; I think this will push them out the door. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:27 pm: == Did they really say this? == Yes. Go watch the video - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:31 pm: == To get the pension changes, would you have to fire everyone and rehire? … Is that possible with the State? == Not under the current interpretation used by Personnel / SERS. A friend was hired by the State after the “Tier 2″ effective date but ended up placed on “Tier 1″ because of previous State service many years ago under the “Tier 1″ rules. I’ll add that is consistent with the various IL SC rulings about terms at time of hiring apply. - Very Fed Up - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:34 pm: 11,000+ earning a pension north of 100K! Good lord, how can a reasonable and rational human even try to defend this. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:38 pm: Last year the university presidents were willing to take on the state pension contribution from their own budgets over time. Looks like a deal to made here. - Joe M - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:41 pm: == Is there any case law on forcing current employees to switch from a pension to another retirement plan? == These cases seem to relate: “Under pension clause in Illinois Constitution, pension participant is entitled to public employee pension based on status of system when his rights in system vested, either at time he entered system or when clause became effective, whichever is later. Bosco v. Chicago Transit Authority, N.D. Ill.2001, 164 F.Supp.2d 1040″ “Pension rights vest when public employee enters pension system or when the Illinois Constitution of 1970 became effective in 1971, whichever is later. Thompson v. Retirement Bd. of Policemen’s Annuity and Ben. Fund of City of Chicago, App. 1 Dist.2008, 318 Ill.Dec. 640, 379 Ill.App.3d 498, 884 N.E.2d 195″ “Purpose behind the pension protection clause for public employees was to provide public employees with a basic protection against abolishing their rights completely or changing the terms of their rights by reducing their benefits after they had already embarked upon employment. Miller v. Retirement Bd. of Policemen’s Annuity, App. 1 Dist.2001, 264 Ill.Dec. 727, 329 Ill.App.3d 589, 771 N.E.2d 431″ - dupage dan - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:53 pm: So, the budget is fine, then, word? All is Quiet on the Western Front, IMO. Madigan never played the budget game to make the numbers look good? You know, if you only look at a slice of the picture, a piece of the pie - you can make anything look good or bad. I prefer to look at things as much as I can in their totality. Not that this adds up to support for Rauner, far from it. I am too cynical for that. I hope that the rhetoric on display is set aside when Madigan and Rauner move towards the negotiating table. That’s where the real work begins. All that crud we heard today, from all the players, is for public consumption. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 2:22 pm: I’m a tier 1 employee with less than 1 year left before rule of 85. If the supremes knock down the current pension reduction farce, how long before the GA comes up with a new farce, the gov signs it and the appeals start flying. Move me to tier 2? How is that NOT a diminishment?. Move me from a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan won’t save the state much, I think. It will mandate regular payments - no pension holidays. How does that help? How does Madigan put forth ANY plan that he must know (he isn’t stupid, after all) is a diminishment with a straight face? And if he does, how does that make him ANY different than Rauner? - Norseman - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 2:32 pm: dupage dan, I hope you make it to your 85. - Cassandra - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 2:40 pm: So the current Tier 1 employees would retain their current pension benefits to date and be switched to Tier 2 going forward? That might be cheaper than trying to switch them to defined comp in the short run. And didn’t a Sidley attorney opine that benefits could be changed constitutionally going forward. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 2:47 pm: == didn’t a Sidley attorney opine that benefits could be changed constitutionally going forward. == Yes, there was an opinion from Sidley saying that but they are definitely in the minority. I don’t think they have a leg to stand on because almost every time a change has been attempted to the terms and conditions of earning a pension, the courts have shot it down. I expect this latest proposal won’t get far in the courts either. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 2:55 pm: - dupage dan - Seriously, if you are that close, go talk to the (I assume) SERS people about exactly when you would hit “85″ just for your own peace of mind. You may be a couple of months closer than you think. Your accrued but not taken vacation time and, any payable sick time (at 1/2 rate) should also count toward your service time. Also, make sure you listen to their advice about exactly what day of the month to retire so you don’t have a lapse in health insurance coverage. Their mission is to help you in your retirement decisions and they do a pretty good job of it. - Secret Square - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 3:25 pm: “there are few Tier 1 people left eligible to retire” Only brand new hires in the last 4 years (since 1/1/11) are in Tier 2. That still leaves the vast majority of State employees in Tier 1, including many who are not even close to retirement. - Secret Square - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 3:29 pm: Actually, I’m more curious about exactly where the savings on State employee health insurance are coming from. How much is the Gov proposing to raise our share of the monthly premiums? How much are co-pays, deductibles, etc. going up? - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 3:35 pm: == How much is the Gov proposing to raise our share of the monthly premiums? == I don’t think we will know until it gets thrown on the bargaining table. But if you want an idea, take a look at what a lot of people pay in the private sector for health insurance … it’s quite expensive when compared to the State. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 3:40 pm: @Secret: If you read the Budget Book it refers to the Affordable Care Act Bronze Plan as a guide. According to the website the average split in costs is 60%/40% (i.e. 60% of costs would be covered while the individual picks up 40% of the cost). I’m assuming that split would be done via a combination of wage deductions, co-pays and deductibles. He’s going for the jugular on health insurance. - Federalist - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 3:45 pm: To much speculation on changes for current retirees. I would expect that the ISC decision next month will clear up this issue. For health insurance they made no distinction thus I find it hard to believe they will on the pension issue either. If the ISC does make the distinction then Rauner will push hard and probably win. It is obvious Democrats would back him since they passed legislation that would have diminished both current and retired employees. And I am certain that Rauner would remind them of that. Will teachers and state employees go quietly if such changes are made while cops and firemen are exempt. I can not believe that they would back off go away like whipped dogs. - Federalist - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 3:47 pm: As to health insurance who knows what Rauner will come up with. But a certain degree of common sense, although not likely, would certainly target dependents for a huge increase in premiums. - Federalist - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 3:49 pm: @Demoralized or RNUG What do you think he can do to go after retirees since the ISC decision? Seems a bit tricky other than perhaps raising deductibles and co-pays for both current and retired employees. Thoughts? - Demoralized - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 3:56 pm: Are you talking about healthcare? I don’t think he intends to go after retirees for anything. He seemed to indicate that in his speech. - Norseman - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 3:56 pm: === Seems a bit tricky other than perhaps raising deductibles and co-pays for both current and retired employees. === He will go after COVERAGE LEVELS, DEDUCTIBLES and CO-PAYS for all. The ISC decision only protects retirees from premiums. Expect further and more tricky litigation on the above. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 4:07 pm: == What do you think he can do to go after retirees since the ISC decision? == About all he can go after is health insurance in a limited fashion. The court even hinted at that with some of the questions during oral arguments about co-pays, etc. but never said what would constitute diminishment of health insurance coverage. Until recently, State employees pretty much had gold level level health insurance and State retirees had pretty much a platinum level. The State pushed the retiree insurance back to between gold & silver level with their forced Medical Advantage program … and that was intentional because the bid specs were (legally) rigged to give that result. I speculated before, and it’s clear from the Budget Book, that the State will aim to drag everyone down to the minimum Bronze level as defined by the ACA. The other area will be the premiums for dependent coverage; expect them to go much higher. - Walter Mitty - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 4:08 pm: The state insurance is close to worthless now… Try and find a provider that is willing to wait a year to get paid…. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 4:09 pm: BTW: I’m only partially into the Budget Book, so it may be different further on, but I found one line interesting. Rauner didn’t say the Police and Firefighters would get what they have now, just that they would get separate special consideration. Sounds like a perfect “bait and switch” line. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 4:11 pm: == The state insurance is close to worthless now… Try and find a provider that is willing to wait a year to get paid…. == I don’t have a problem as a member of one of the HMO’s. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 4:11 pm: == Very Fed Up - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 1:34 pm: 11,000+ earning a pension north of 100K! Good lord, how can a reasonable and rational human even try to defend this.== Not to defend anything, but the 11,297 for 2014 includes Chicago, Cook County, Judges, Teachers, SRS, State Universities, etc. Of that number, 612 are SRS (State employees). And, of the 612, 87 are Illinois State Police. I’ll be another far number are Corrections, and any other place where wages are good and overtime plentiful. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 4:14 pm: The line about a Constitutional Amendment for permanent pension relief sounds to me like he still has an agenda to go after the AAI and/or a 401K equivalent if he can get something passed. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 4:16 pm: And I guess Rauner’s idea of pension relief for non-State government entities is to allow them to take bankrupcy … except it’s phrased “bankruptcy protection”. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 4:19 pm: == Sounds like a perfect “bait and switch” line. == OK, I found where he clearly says no benefits changes to police and firefighters … - Wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 4:23 pm: Guy, why do you pretend this isn’t what Rauner wanted to do? He said during the campaign that taxes were too high and spending was too much. Now, taxes have been cut and he’s proposing cuts in spending. He’s no victim. This is what he wanted. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 4:24 pm: Just got to the part about lowering the interest paid on past due bills. Right now a lot of providers don’t mind being paid late because the interest is so good, but if this change goes through watch for a lot of providers and suppliers to drop the State as a customer. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 4:33 pm: Love the part about reducing the DNR budget through managing staffing levels /snark - Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 5:02 pm: RNUG and others, the fire/rehire scenario won’t work for changing tiers. In the 80’s, after a handful of top bureaucrats left the payroll for a day to get an SERS refund and then were rehired, a statutory six-month “time-out” in SERS coverage after any break in service is required. - Interested Party - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 5:20 pm: After nearly 40 years of state service and thinking I’ve seen everything, Gov Rauner’s attitude reminds me of Mel Brooks in “History of the World” - “It’s good to be king” !!!! - dupage dan - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 5:28 pm: Thank you, RNUG. I am watching that. My sick time issue is such that I don’t have much in the 1/2 payout column. I appreciate your advice. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 6:08 pm: - Arthur Andersen - I remember that little trick … - work in progress - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 7:02 pm: RNUG Im not following you on the different plans for employee vs retired. My copays,deductables,and dependent premeiums are identical to when I worked. - Just Me - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 7:17 pm: Take a breath everyone, it is just an INTRODUCED budget. - MrJM - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 7:24 pm: “Soccermom, at least your heartsickness and anger was obtained at a very high cost.” This. – MrJM - Anotherretiree - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 7:46 pm: “Work In Progress” If you are a non Medicare retiree, then your plan is identical. And come July 1 it will decrease in value just like the employee’s plan. Medicare retirees already took a hit with Medicare Advantage(RNUG typed Medical Advantage.. prob due to shock). Medicare retirees will get their next surprise Jan 1 - work in progress - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 7:56 pm: Thank you another.Im a few years away from trying to figure that mess out. I appreciate your response. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 8:46 pm: - work in progress - Anotherretiree pretty much summed it up … plus he knows I tend to typo so he could translate. Anyway, to expand a bit, when you are retired which health insurance you end up with varies by the age of both the retiree and their spouse / dependent (if any). If it is just yourself, then under age 65 you get the same insurance choices as an empoloyee; over 65 you must choose one of the Medicare Advantage programs that replaces both original Medicare AND the state paid health insurance. If it is yourself and a spouse and one of you is under 65, you get to choose between the same plans as an employee; if both of you are over 65, then you can only choose one of the Medicare Advantage programs. The best situation at the moment is for one person to be under 65 and the other over 65; the person over 65 has original Medicare as primary and one of the employee plans as secondary, which is great coverage for that person and basically no out of pocket to speak of for most services. This is the way it used to be when you retired and reached Medicare age. But now the Medicare Advantage coverage is actually a bit worse (on average), in terms of deductibles and co-pays, than the current employee plan. There are exceptions where the MA plan is better, if just depends on the care needed. Believe me when I say there is a learning curve to the Medicare alphabet. If you still have living parents, either you have to learn it to help them out … or they’ve been dealing with it for years and can help you out. - work in progress - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 9:13 pm: RNUG I appreciate your comments as well as many others on CF. This particular response especially since you give me a clear picture as to what awaits me in the not that distant future. ugg thanks again - Retired Already - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 9:30 pm: rnug I am retired (SURS) and will be in what you referred to as currently the best situation by the end of the year (one Medicare eligible - a spouse dependent that is a long way from being Medicare eligible). The thing that worries me the most is that there is no requirement as far as I know to offer a spouse or a retiree health insurance. Even the Affordable Healthcare Act does not require employers to offer healthcare to spouses - only to dependent children of employees. My brother-in-law works for a company that is forcing spouses out of their health plan if the spouse is eligible for health insurance through their own employment. Do you think the state could come up with a similar sceam? - Retired Already - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 9:34 pm: Sorry spouse or a retiree health insurance should be spouse of a retiree health insurance - Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 9:34 pm: Cut, slash, burn, and freaking CMS ends up with 140 new headcount. Guess we know where the “Crew” is gonna be hidin’. - Wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 9:49 pm: AA, good catch. A bump of 140 head count at CMS. I get the feeling that a few dozen of those will be doing a lot of work out of the governors office. Central management, in a way. - Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 10:39 pm: Stay tuned word. May have a couple more ah, Pay Days in the punchbowl but still checking out. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 11:18 pm: - Retired Already - That’s a can of worms I don’t think I can clearly answer right now. All I have to go on is past practice and that has been the State providing optional spouse coverage. Could the State try it? Probably but it most likely will depend on what kind of health insurance coverage is included in the various union contract deals. Could the State price it out of the market? Again, same answer. Are you by any chance one of the few SURS retirees who qualified for the 20 year “premium free” health insurance is covered by the Kanerva ruling? Under that scenario, the State has to allow any retiree with a minimum of, I believe, 8 years of service to purchase health insurance for themselves. - lost in the weeds - Wednesday, Feb 18, 15 @ 11:50 pm: In the budget book there is a graph that shows where the 6.6 billion FY16 cuts will be made. 2.9 billion consists of the 2.2 billion pension cut for current workers and the approx. 675 billion government worker healthcare plan savings. The next largest cuts are Medicaid? (not clear from graph), and cut of money to municipalities and universities. This from chapter 2-22 of operations budget book. - lost in the weeds - Thursday, Feb 19, 15 @ 12:16 am: Bond Buyer has a discussion of the proposal http://www.bondbuyer.com/news/regionalnews/illinois-governors-budget-would-cut-far-and-wide-1070552-1.html - Retired Already - Thursday, Feb 19, 15 @ 7:50 am: rnug ==Are you by any chance one of the few SURS retirees who qualified for the 20 year “premium free” health insurance is covered by the Kanerva ruling?== I am covered by the Kanerva ruling. Actually most SURS annuitants (there are about 59,000) receive their health insurance through the State Employees Group Insurance Program because their employer was a state university. SURS annuitants that worked for community colleges receive their health insurance through the College Insurance Program (CIP) which is also managed by CMS. - lost in the weeds - Thursday, Feb 19, 15 @ 8:13 am: Should be 700 million not 675 billion in above post. not sure that can be called a typo. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.