The ideas that refuse to die
Wednesday, Feb 21, 2018 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Feb. 17, 2018…
Now, as [in 2015], Rauner argues the state can save more than $700 million from the insurance changes he wants to make. That includes $470 million by forcing state workers to pay more of their health insurance costs, $125 million by eliminating a subsidy for the Teachers’ Retirement Insurance Program and $4.4 million from eliminating the same subsidy to an insurance program for retired community college employees.
Rauner said another $105 million can be saved by shifting some group health insurance costs to universities.
He couched the changes in a populist message meant to appeal to non-public workers.
“Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for government health insurance policies that are richer than ones they can afford for themselves,” Rauner said. “It’s not fair.”
* Feb. 22, 2015…
Health insurance for active state workers and retirees is being targeted for big savings in Gov. Bruce Rauner’s budget plan.
Rauner wants to save $700 million by negotiating new insurance plans for active workers.
His budget also calls for an end to state subsidies to the health insurance programs for retired downstate teachers and community college workers.
“By bringing health care benefits more in line with those received by the taxpayers who pay for them, we save an additional $700 million,” Rauner said Wednesday in his budget speech.
* May 11, 2012…
Retired state workers stand to pay more for health insurance that thousands of them now get for little or nothing under legislation the Senate approved Thursday and Gov. Pat Quinn plans to sign.
The 31-20 vote represented the first major test of whether lawmakers trying to put together a new state budget can make deep cuts that will anger a large segment of voters in an election year.
“I am encouraged that legislators have taken this step toward restoring fiscal stability to Illinois,” Quinn said, adding that he will sign the bill into law. “This legislation will help ensure that our retirees continue to have access to quality health care while also lowering the cost to taxpayers.” […]
In urging colleagues to scale back retiree insurance, sponsoring Sen. Jeff Schoenberg said the escalating costs of the program could hit $1 billion in the budget year that starts July 1 if nothing is done now. The Democratic senator from Evanston said the costs are approaching $880 million this year alone, and the goal is to save $300 million or more.
…Adding… I didn’t notice this before, but the Pritzker people pointed to a weekend press release which includes this link from May 9, 2012…
The Illinois House voted Wednesday to pull free, taxpayer-funded health insurance from nearly 80,000 state retirees and retired suburban and downstate teachers, lawmakers and judges, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
SB 1313 was approved by a 74-43 vote. It takes aim at an $876 million annual subsidy that had been one of the most lucrative perks of public employment. See how the House members voted in the interactive graphic below, sorting by district, party and how they voted. The bill now moves to the Senate.
Rep. Daniel Biss voted “Yes” on that bill.
* May 3, 2012…
Tens of thousands of retired state employees could be stripped of their free health insurance benefit under legislation pending in the Illinois House.
House Speaker Michael Madigan and House Minority Leader Tom Cross said the $876 million cost is unsustainable at a time when the state budget is billions of dollars out of whack because of rising Medicare costs and employee pension problems.
On a unanimous vote, the House Executive Committee forwarded the proposal to the full House for further debate. It would allow a state benefits administrator to set the health insurance premium rate for 78,000 retired judges, lawmakers, prison guards, university workers and others.
* Feb. 25, 2012…
Gov. Pat Quinn wants to eliminate state funding for two health insurance programs that provide coverage for retired schoolteachers and community college instructors across Illinois.
The idea, part of the new spending plan the governor unveiled last week, would cut roughly $92 million from the Teachers Retirement Insurance Program and the Community College Insurance Program. […]
Senate Republicans say state law requires the teacher retirement insurance money to be paid. Unless there’s a vote to change that law, they argue, Quinn’s proposed cut is artificial and won’t reduce spending.
* March 18, 2009…
State workers and public school teachers could face smaller paychecks under the budget proposal presented by Gov. Pat Quinn on Wednesday. […]
Increasing employee health-care contributions would bring in $200 million into state coffers. This would cost employees an average of $1,300 more annually, according to AFSCME.
- Galena Guy - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 12:31 pm:
I’m sorry but there’s no other way to put it - he’s a monster who seems to take perverse pleasure in trying to inflict pain on the working people of this state. And his “lower taxes on the ‘job creators’”line in his TV ads is just more proof of that.
- Jocko - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 12:38 pm:
== Rauner argues the state can save more than $700 million==
Given his skill at estimation ($100k utility bill, $500m Quincy repair, saving Medicaid hundreds of millions), you’ll forgive me if I’m a little skeptical.
- ComeTogether - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 12:39 pm:
Let me get my three missed raises along with the back pay for the last three years and I’ll gladly throw more toward healthcare costs. You sir, walked away. There was no and will be no negotiating with you. You are a billionaire bully and thief. It’s hard for, “Afscammy” to negotiate on the back porch of your mansion.
- StateEmployee - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 12:39 pm:
I did the math on what the cost of my insurance premium is and what the State pays and what I pay. The State picks up the vast majority of the cost of the premium. Given the quality of the insurance provided by the State, it makes sense to have employees pay more for this. I don’t know about 60-40, but it has to be higher than what we currently pay.
- ComeTogether - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 12:41 pm:
@State worker
I completely agree. Give me my deserved last three misses increases and the pay I missed bc of it and I’ll gladly contribute more.
- ComeTogether - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 12:43 pm:
Sorry should’ve said @StateEmployee
From one employee to another.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 12:48 pm:
==makes sense to have employees pay more for this==
I think for reasonable people that’s not necessarily the issue. The issue is asking them to pay double. Considering Rauner’s proposal Quinn’s proposal was tame.
- IllinoisBoi - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 12:48 pm:
Does any state employee really get “free” health insurance?
- Steve Polite - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 12:58 pm:
@IllinoisBoi No. All state employees pay premiums, copays, and deductibles. Tier 1 retirees in SERS, get 5% of the premium paid for themselves for every year of service. After 20 years that is 100%. They are still required to pay copays and deductibles. They also pay 100% of everything for any covered dependents including a spouse.
- Cheryl44 - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 1:04 pm:
Considering they work for a lot less than they could get from a private business, I don’t care if they pay less for health insurance.
- Perrid - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 1:06 pm:
@IllinoisBoi, retirees do get free healthcare I believe, not current, working employees. I looked at the rates for FY 2017, and for all the healthcare plans, for all income brackets, and for employee only/one dependent/two or more dependents, employees pay anything from 7% of premium cost to 25%. Which, when you look at BLS’ data(https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs2.toc.htm look at tables 3 and 4), is not that out of whack compared to other unions. It is lower than the entire civilian population, but then we get the question: is the split for unions too high, or is the split for the private sector too low? However, when the Guv says that state employee healthcare cost is very high, regardless of the State/employee split, that is absolutely correct. The premium for the Quality Care Health Plan for employees and 2 or more dependents cost just over $30,000 a year.
- IllinoisBoi - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 1:06 pm:
@Steve Polite: yes, that was my impression. So why is there this constant mention of non-existent “free health insurance”? Except to make state employees appear unfairly privileged?
- Retired Educator - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 1:09 pm:
They have been trying this theft for years. Had they shown any thought in the past, this could have all been avoided. They have continuously started expensive new programs for political gain, without revenue streams in place. They wooed voters with free programs and slowly broke the state. Now they want to make things right by stealing from those most vulnerable. (Retirees)
- 2 cents - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 1:10 pm:
I am a state retiree, and for 2 cents worth, I’d be willing to negotiate a deal on health care premiums when the state actually is current in its payments to the healthcare providers and current on the “ramp required” pension payments. Final word - any negotiated deal on health care premiums would be contractually linked to the state staying current with healthcare provider payments and pension payments. Just my 2 cents
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 1:11 pm:
There needs to be clarification about what a state employee is. My neighbor believed that teachers are state employees and therefore, get free healthcare for life in retirement.
Absolutely untrue. TRIP insurance for teachers is not low cost. Adding a dependent to it is a serious financial issue.
So lumping public employees all in one bunch is being misinformed.
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 1:23 pm:
Mike Madigan agrees cuts and revenues are needed but lacks a spine to do the cutting unless there is a Democratic Governor.
Fascinating how Democrats in the legislature just play to their base and don’t even pretend to be fiscally responsible when there is a Republican Governor to pin the blame for all of the financial mess that has been created.
Why is the Governor going after health insurance and pensions? For the same reason Jesse James robbed banks, thats where the money is.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 1:25 pm:
“why is there this constant mention of non-existent “free health insurance”?”
Most likely because people simply aren’t bothering to distinguish between the premiums for retirees and the premiums for current employees.
- A Jack - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 1:32 pm:
LP: equating the Governor to a bank robber? I suppose if the shoe fits….
- RIJ - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 1:38 pm:
No. Having insurance premiums paid was part of my retirement contract, and I consider any attempt to reduce the quality of my plan to be pension theft.
- A Jack - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 1:38 pm:
Past Governors have negotiated increases in the health insurance premiums. The current Governor has failed to negotiate. The GA has nothing to do with this issue. The Governor thought he could railroad the collective bargaining process. Rauner failed and that can be added to his list of failures.
- Langhorne - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 1:40 pm:
In Rauner world, state employees are the enemy.
Union employees are the plague. Employees and retirees and their health care are simply “costs”, and part of “govt spending” to be managed (cut). Paper pushers whose union blocks computerization.
So it’s fine to demonize them.
- RIJ - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 1:41 pm:
LP, yes, you’ve hit one of the problems with Rauner on the head. One of many, but one that is central to his warped oligarchical world view.
- thoughts matter - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 2:00 pm:
Not all state retirees get free health insurance premiums. Only those that worked 20 years. see Steve Polite’s answer. If you work 10 years, you pay 50% of the states total cost for yourself, which is more than a current state employee pays. All actual state worker retirees pay the same price for dependents as active state employees, regardless of whether you worked 8 years or 40. Retired teachers pay health insurance differently. Retired legislators also pay differently, as do judges.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 2:01 pm:
Rauner’s a multimillionaire whose income skyrocketed since becoming governor, $279 million in 2015 and 2016. There’s nothing fair and right about doubling state employees’ health insurance costs while Rauner and other super-rich pay a personal income tax rate lower than all neighboring states with progressive income taxes.
Massive health insurance hikes are but one of the many harsh proposals Rauner is trying to force on state employees, so it’s much worse overall.
State employees should not bear such a heavy burden when the super-rich like Rauner pay a relative pittance—especially after the massive federal tax cuts given to the super-wealthy. My marginal tax rate is now higher than a multibillion dollar corporation. Two words for that that rhyme with truck hat.
- Gruntled University Employee - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 2:06 pm:
Dear Governor,
If I’m a State employee, which I am, and I pay State taxes, which I do, how can you argue that my health insurance is richer than what “Taxpayers ” can afford for themselves? I sir, and all of my Stateworker brethren, are Taxpayers too.
Sincerely,
GUE
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 2:14 pm:
Instead of going after health insurance, couldn’t the state just sell the Thompson Center another half dozen more times or so? That always adds a few hundred million to the balance sheet at budget proposal time.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 2:28 pm:
>> “By bringing health care benefits more in line with those received by the taxpayers who pay for them, we save an additional $700 million,” Rauner said Wednesday in his budget speech.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 2:32 pm:
Sorry something went wrong with my post @ 2:28. I thought corporations are sharing their huge tax cut gains with employees, making their health insurance cheaper. It’s not happening and Trump is wrong? /s
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 2:32 pm:
word, they need to get that building knocked down soon so they can take the pipes out and use them in Quincy.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 2:40 pm:
AA, there has to be at least $500 million of pipe in JRTC.
- Whatever - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 2:52 pm:
==“Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for government [salaries] that are richer than ones they can afford for themselves,” Rauner said. “It’s not fair.”==
Fixed it to show how nonsensical this statement is on its face. Employee compensation and benefits are not gifts from the state, they are payments for services. No one is stupid enough to suggest that all state employees be paid minimum wage with no benefits. The state ain’t going to get what it won’t pay for, and the state actually does need professionals and experienced people who should be paid more average. Even the governor knows that, or he’d be asking his superstars to work for free instead of paying them far more than other state employees make.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 2:52 pm:
== The premium for the Quality Care Health Plan for employees and 2 or more dependents cost just over $30,000 a year. ==
As I see it, there are multiple problems … and all can be laid on the State’s doorstep.
1) The Quality Care program is the State self-insuring, and paying a company (previously CIGNA) to manage it for them. It is not really a health insurance program so much as it is a program to pay employee’s medical bills. There are several problems with it. One is it is a straight fee for service approach, with no real attempt to manage costs through negotiations with providers. A second problem is the GA / Governors have consistently underfunded it, so payments are delayed and there is no incentive for any provider to discount services. Add to that the cost of paying interest on the delayed payments. And lastly, the State is paying someone else to administer the program; this may or may not be an advantage to the State. But the bottom line is that there is no real incentive to control costs in the Quality Care program.
2) The premiums the State does pay to the actual insurance companies, such as the preferred provider and HMO policies, seem to be high. Given the volume of State employees / teachers potentially covered by the insurance providers, it doesn’t look like the State is getting much of a discount / price break. Yes,costs have gone up over the years. Yes, I realize that the coverage is put out for bid. But the last few times, it seems like the bid specs were very restrictive and favored only a few companies. The health insurance bid games under Blago (remember changing the specs after the bids, cutting out a couple of highly rated providers in favor of a couple of low rated Chicago ones?) just reinforced my belief that the State plays favorites rather than getting a good competitive bids. Given the volume involved, you would think the State could get rates closer to Medicare / Medicaid level that straight fee for service levels.
So, personally, I think the State has missed some opportunities to lower their health insurance costs.
- City Zen - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 2:53 pm:
==while Rauner and other super-rich pay a personal income tax rate lower than all neighboring states with progressive income taxes.==
You forgot retirees who pay nothing. Tax retirement income to fund decent state employee health insurance. Deal?
- City Zen - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 2:57 pm:
==I sir, and all of my Stateworker brethren, are Taxpayers too.==
Fantastic. Just like you, I also derive a direct benefit from increased revenues from my employer. In that vein, would you please buy one license of my software? Sorry, no discounts…wouldn’t want to race to the bottom.
- Foster brooks - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 2:57 pm:
Rauner negotiated totally free health insurance to the teamsters in 2015
- My New Handle - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 3:00 pm:
What would have absoutely saved the state money is Rauner not spending billions in unappropriated state funds. Why those expenditures are legal is beyond me.
- Honeybear - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 3:19 pm:
It must also be remembered that state workers also have different benefit structures based upon the date of hire.
I’m tier II on both pension and benefits. Not only that but we are a two state worker household. We are required to hold two policies. We can’t lump us all into one like most private sector families. Thus double the pain of an insurance increase. Add to that, as a newer employee Rauner unilaterally and illegally froze our pay which robbed me of 7,646 dollars since 2015.
Rauners goal is to collapse the workforce and thereby create the optimal conditions for both privatization and elimination of regulations ( or the enforcement of them) or any administrative or governmental function that could get in the way of profit.
This all part of the plan
He’s a
Profit Supremicist
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 3:20 pm:
–What would have absoutely saved the state money is Rauner not spending billions in unappropriated state funds. –
And out of those illegally spent billions, not $8 million for pipes in Quincy, as recommended in August 2016.
Priorities.
- Ron - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 3:24 pm:
Illinois has coddled it’s public workers at the expense of it’s private for far too long.
- Joe M - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 3:52 pm:
- from the Kaiser 2017 Employer Health Benefits Survey (for large employers)
“Most covered workers make a contribution toward the cost of the premium for their coverage. On average, covered workers contribute 18% of the premium for single coverage and 31% of the premium for family coverage”
So that comes to national averages of 18/82 for single coverage and 31/69 for family coverage. Where is Rauner getting his 40/60 figures from?
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 3:57 pm:
I don’t have a problem with the idea of paying taxes on retirement income that’s over $50,000 annually. I don’t have a problem with modest concessions made by state employees. I have a major problem with massive cuts pushed by a multimillionaire who made $279 million in his two years as governor—not far from half of the $700-plus million he wants to cut from government employees.
It’s really simple. A super-rich governor wants to slash working class employees while offering little or no concessions from himself and other super-wealthy. Why doesn’t the governor lead by example and try to cut his own income first, such as via a progressive income tax? If Rauner and Democrats both pushed for a progressive income tax/millionaire surcharge, it might actually become law.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 4:16 pm:
Ron, did you mean to say Illinois undercharged its taxpayers for many years for promises of deferred compensation made to its employees?
I must have checked the wrong box when I signed up for that “free retiree healthcare.” My family medical expenses are mid-5 figures for CY 17.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 4:24 pm:
Always marvel at how people like Rauner, who have so much wealth are always interested in not only slashing what un-wealthy people have but want them to help the poor and needy. Of course, the uber-wealthy could just hand off 10% or even 5% of what they have and make a huge dent in problems, but they won’t. They want you to go first.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 4:24 pm:
==Where is Rauner getting his 40/60 figures from==
He got it from the bottom of the ACA barrel - the ACA Bronze Plan.
- ComeTogether - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 4:58 pm:
The morale of the whole non-stepped out state employee work force is crushed. Many of us are willing to compromise on certain issues but that’s not an option.
- Steve Rogers - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 4:59 pm:
For Illinois to have a graduated income tax, we’ll have to amend the Constitution. Not impossible, but quite difficult and lengthy process. The millionaire tax is different, although I think a court would easily say that it’s a form of graduated income taxes. The people of Illinois can petition for an amendment, but you need a lot of signatures, and it can’t be on the ballot for at least two years, so you’re looking at 2020 at the earliest.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 21, 18 @ 5:50 pm:
== The people of Illinois can petition for an amendment, ==
Actually, they can’t on most subjects.
They may only address “structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV.” In other words, the only thing a voter driven constitutional amendment can do is modify the structure of the General Assembly. The last successful one was the Quinn cut-back amendment.