Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: My advice to Rahm
Next Post: Quinn goes all-in on gay marriage
Posted in:
* If you were watching yesterday’s live session coverage post, you saw that the Senate passed a bill to repeal the state law giving retirees with 20 years of active service free health insurance premiums. Gov. Pat Quinn issued a statement not long after the bill passed…
“I am encouraged that legislators have taken this step towards restoring fiscal stability to Illinois. This legislation will help ensure that our retirees continue to have access to quality health care, while also lowering the cost to taxpayers.
“I would like to thank Senate President Cullerton, Senate Minority Leader Radogno, House Speaker Madigan and House Minority Leader Cross for their collaboration and leadership. I plan to sign this legislation and look forward to continuing to work together to make the difficult decisions necessary to return Illinois to sound financial footing.”
* How the law will work…
The legislation allows the Illinois Department of Central Management Services to negotiate the premium rates annually with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31.
Whatever CMS and AFSCME negotiates will be applied to retired lawmakers, retired judges and retired university workers.
If the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules balks at the rate, AFSCME and CMS would return to the negotiating table.
* Sen. Jeff Schoenberg played up the collective bargaining aspects…
“It will be a collectively bargained retiree benefit,” said Robb Craddick, who is deputy director of labor relations for CMS and the chief labor negotiator for the state. “The intent of this legislation is to allow the Department of Central Management Services to negotiate a means-based plan.” Craddick said that if JCAR rejects the number, then AFSCME and CMS would return to the table.
“I support and respect the collective bargaining process. … These benefits are going to be collectively bargained. So I certainly hope that in the public discussion, there’s no representation that it’s going to be anything but that,” Schoenberg said.
The benefits will be collectively bargained, but the GA has essentially given a super-committee veto power over the end result. So, it’s not exactly collective bargaining.
* AFSCME, however, ain’t happy…
But union officials say the plan impedes the collective bargaining process and allows CMS to arbitrarily set the amount the state would pay. […]
Cameron argued that while working, retirees gave up other things through collective bargaining, such as raises, as a trade off for their paid health care. “The health insurance is a benefit that was earned. It’s not a perk, it’s not a privilege, it’s not a giveaway,” he said. “While working members, they negotiated to make sure that their retiree health care benefits were affordable. And as a consequence, they took less in salary, less in wage increases. That reduced their pension, so they have less [retirement] income. But again, they were operating under this framework that they were guaranteed affordable health benefits.” He said that the new plan does not give retirees a way to predict what their health care costs would be from year to year.
Cameron said the rising cost of health care is a serious issue, but he said the proposal does nothing to address that problem. “Let’s be clear: What we’re doing here is both breaking a promise to those retirees and shifting the cost of that health care liability onto their shoulders. We’re not reducing it. We’re not eliminating it. It remains unaffordable, but we have decided to stick the bill to those who can least afford it.”
* Not surprisingly, Springfield’s Republican state Senator voted against it…
Sen. Larry Bomke, R-Springfield, said he thinks the bill is unconstitutional because it applies to people who retired years ago from the state with the expectation of receiving health insurance at no premium cost if they worked 20 or more years for the state. The benefit was put into state law in 1997. Bomke said the change should only apply to future retirees.
“I don’t disagree we need to do something about the health care and the costs, there’s no question about it, but prospectively,” Bomke said. “To vote yes on this bill will simply mean that we’ll have a court challenge, we’ll spend millions of dollars we don’t have trying to defend it, only to realize it’s not constitutional.”
* The Tribune editorial page wasn’t convinced of that explanation…
State Sen. Larry Bomke, R-Springfield, predictably voted against the bill. Too many state workers in his district. Too much union pressure. Not enough moxie.
* Related…
* How Senators voted on SB 1313
* Quinn will sign bill to end free health insurance for state retirees
* IL Senate pushes cost of health care to state retirees
* Plan to charge state retirees for health insurance heads to Gov. Quinn’s desk
* Plan ending free health insurance goes to Quinn
* Retiree Health Care Plan Heads To Governor
* Health insurance proposal sent to Quinn
* Senate approves cuts to retirement perk
* Quinn says he’ll sign cut to retiree health care support
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 11, 12 @ 10:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: My advice to Rahm
Next Post: Quinn goes all-in on gay marriage
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
===State Sen. Larry Bomke, R-Springfield, predictably voted against the bill. Too many state workers in his district. Too much union pressure. Not enough moxie.===
Hilarious! Too True …
Sen. Bomke, you can purchase a “spine” at any time!
Weasel move, Senator … we are looking for solutions, why don’t you help?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 11, 12 @ 10:32 am
I didn’t know “expectation” was a constitutional right.
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, May 11, 12 @ 10:37 am
I’m not reading too much into the roll call as a prediction of future events. By all appearances, this is a structured roll call that the four leaders and governor agreed to push.
You’re correct to point out that this ain’t exactly collective bargaining. I’ll take it a couple of steps further.
By giving JCAR veto authority over the health benefits agreement, the Governor has inadvertently given the legislature a back door into the entire contract negotiations. Now, if the legislature doesn’t like ANY part of the contract, they can simply reject the health benefits portion, which would reopen negotiations for everything.
And because JCAR is bipartisan, Madigan, Cullerton and Quinn are giving Republicans a HUGE amount of political leverage with AFSCME and by extension, all of organized labor.
It won’t be long before the GOP members of JCAR are hosting labor fundraisers.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, May 11, 12 @ 10:39 am
Oswego Willy @ 10:32 am
That’s an unfair slam at Larry. I’ve known him and his wife for about 25 years now, and while he does consider the desires of his district, I’ve seen him take some very hard votes that his conscience dictated.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, May 11, 12 @ 10:41 am
Cameron’s comments sound like the legal briefs are already drawn up.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 11, 12 @ 10:42 am
I am so tired of all the so called conservatives coming out against cuts with no other suggestions. We need to cut billions. It’s unfortunate but we all pay more and more for services, goods, taxes etc. Did he have ANY of his own proposed cuts?
Comment by Patricia T Friday, May 11, 12 @ 10:43 am
So now that AFSCME is collectively bargaining on behalf of all state employees including non-union university employees, does that mean we all -retirees included- need to pay fair share union dues? If so, AFSCME should be ecstatic that this passed!
Comment by thechampaignlife Friday, May 11, 12 @ 10:46 am
I still believe it is absolutely criminal to change the rules for people that are already retired. I hope they win in court.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, May 11, 12 @ 10:47 am
Yesterday SB3919 was introduced which lays out the payment structure based on the annuity and years of service/age. Interesting reading
Comment by Former Merit Comp Slave Friday, May 11, 12 @ 10:47 am
Would this represent any savings in the 2013 budget, and if so, does anyone have an estimate?
Perhaps my real question is: would requiring retirees to pay some of their health care premiums affect the amount of revenue needed from cuts to Medicaid?
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, May 11, 12 @ 10:48 am
The panic that is occuring by the current staff that meets “Rule of 85″ is rampid. The rumors of the AFSCME negotions, and the lack of trust of the Legislature and the Governors office are pushing these people to retire, many by the end of May. So if they passed this as a way of slowing down retirements…..it didn’t work.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Friday, May 11, 12 @ 10:49 am
“Cameron argued that while working, retirees gave up other things through collective bargaining, such as raises, as a trade off for their paid health care.”
That sounds like the beginning of the argument that this diminishes the retirement benefits.
Comment by Ca Friday, May 11, 12 @ 10:52 am
===That’s an unfair slam at Larry. I’ve known him and his wife for about 25 years now, and while he does consider the desires of his district, I’ve seen him take some very hard votes that his conscience dictated.===
If everyone has “their district” in mind during all these tough choices, NO choices will get done.
In this instance … Sen. Bomke had no spine, got “cover” from his colleagues, but when we as Repubs need our “leaders” to stand up and lead, Sen. Bomke took a weasel-way out, and indeed showed NO moxie.
The 25 years you’ve known him … and his wife (you threw her in, trying to figure that out on a legislative vote she doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with?) notwithstanding.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 11, 12 @ 10:56 am
it will still come down to how much money the GA gives, or doesnt give, to cms to cover health insurance for retirees. half of current amount? a third? and as the unions pointed out, there is the issue of increasing costs and who gets hit with that burden year by year.
if the current avg cost per employee is in the range of $600 per month, and the GA wants to dodge half the cost, thats $3600 per year out of an average pension of $30k. shift the responsibility to cms, thats a lot easier than voting to tax retirement income 12%.
as i understand it, the majority of retirees are at the low end of the spectrum, so to give them less of a hit means really socking it on up the line.
how will cms figure it if two retirees are married–one getting $25k and the other $50k. will their rates be set individually, or will they get hit w the upper end of the scale?
at least we can cover it out of the cola. oh, wait. nevermind.
Comment by langhorne Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:04 am
It is not only rule of 85 employees that are rushing the exits. It is also employees over 60 with at least 10 years moving out.
A division manager came in and told a group of 15 employees 50 years old up … “I have been told by the Department Director … don’t worry you have until the end of the year to retire.”
The way I heard that statement is ” get out oldtimer.” There is a new wave moving in.
Comment by gg Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:13 am
Would note that teachers (TRIP retirement) are included (Articel 16 Pension Code) - even though there is a separate contribution from local school districts and a payroll deduction from active teachers that goes into the pot. Current funding and formulas are completely different from SERS.
ALL teachers were paying the same - now it will be means tested.
So AFSCME gets a seat at the table when they represent something like 25% of the active employees impacted. That will be an interesting dynamic.
Comment by Archimedes Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:14 am
We’ll eventually find out whether Bomke will be vindicated by the state Supreme Court. If the Supremes declare it unconstitutional, Bomke can say “I told you so” to his critics.
On the other hand, I worry the justices, in their wisdom, might strike down only the part that applies to the judicial branch.
Comment by reformer Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:16 am
===On the other hand, I worry the justices, in their wisdom, might strike down only the part that applies to the judicial branch.===
That made my Friday! Thanks!
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:22 am
So AFSCME will bargain for all the unions? Unfair labor practice!
Comment by Huh? Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:22 am
Does anyone know where in the constitution health insurance is covered? I know pensions are but unsure of health insurance
Comment by Patricia T Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:27 am
Can anyone explain why JCAR got dragged into this?
Comment by Secret Square Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:35 am
sen righter is the sponsor of sb3919, so i doubt it will go anywhere. if madigan and cullerton, et al, wanted a statutory formula or framework, it woulda been in the bill.
Comment by langhorne Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:35 am
If someone is going to challenge this as unconstitutional, I can’t see how it can be AFSCME, since they bargained over it in the past.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:39 am
langhorne - I think you’ve way underestimated the state monthly cost for retirees insurance. I’m pretty sure it averages to over $1,000 per month.
Comment by Choice? Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:40 am
I’m not sure what broken promise AFSCME’s John Cameron was referring to. Was it the broken union promise of honesty and fair dealing with its membership which it broke by allowing benefits that were doomed in the future? Or was it the breach of honesty with its memmership when it paid off weak spined politicians to agree to unsustainable retirement benefits? Or was he referring to the broken promises of Illinois politicians to act honestly and fairly with all state citizens and not to favor one group (campaign contributing gov unions) over another (the rest of us)? Mr. Cameron, save the crocodile tears for the muppets.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:46 am
The attacks on Sen. Bomke are unfair. He is not running for reelection so the supposed motive does not hold up. This is one of his few votes that I have agreed with him but I fear his legal reasoning is faulty. Unlike the constitutional guarantee on pensions, there is no right to the continuation of a statute.
Comment by Bigtwich Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:47 am
What is happening to us is the same thing that happened in Wisconsin. They are just being sneakier about it and the Democrats have jumped on board with the Republicans here because they can’t flee to Illinois.
Comment by Ronbo Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:48 am
Quinn was talking about some kind if 7 teir plan. Anybody aren that
Comment by Only in Illinois Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:49 am
===He is not running for reelection so the supposed motive does not hold up.===
SO…
If they don’t hold up … how can the criticism by unfair? Your explaination of how it’s unfair isn’t holding much water.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:54 am
The cost being paid by the state for Cigna Healthlink is $891.32 per month for retiree not on Medicare and $373.62 per month for retiree on Medicare.
Comment by Cassiopeia Friday, May 11, 12 @ 11:57 am
Cut Bomke some slack.
Its called a “structured roll call.” It up to Radogno to round up the votes she promises and decide who does or does not get a pass. Apparently, for whatever reason, Bomke had one.
This is how big bipartisan legislation gets done in Springfield. Let’s not weep that it didn’t pass unanimously. If it was unanimous, it wouldn’t do anything.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, May 11, 12 @ 12:10 pm
@Choice?
my benefit statement says health alliance is $628 per mo. but different plans vary. the ballpark number is $800 mil for 76,000 employees. that comes out to $10.5k per year or $875 per month. so the hits get bigger.
Comment by langhorne Friday, May 11, 12 @ 12:16 pm
YDD -
I am with you, and understand. My point, he ain’t running, and Bomke takes the pass from someone else?
I am glad things seem to be working in a bi-partisan manner, but really … Bomke takes the pass? That is pretty pathetic, and a horrible example for others in the caucus when they need votes from other Lame Ducks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 11, 12 @ 12:19 pm
$800 per person per month health insurance premiums, $1,000 a month… Does it strike anyone except me that that is a lot, considering the 10s of thousands of people that the state insures? I know self-employed people who buy their own health insurance for $500 a month. I may be comparing apples to oranges as far as coverage is concerned, but it doesn’t seem like the state is getting much in return for its potential bargaining power.
Comment by anonymous Friday, May 11, 12 @ 12:23 pm
@Willy -
Again, that’s Radogno’s call. But look at the roll call. I’m not sure there’s too many Republicans in the Yes column who required any arm-twisting.
If this had been a vote on health benefits or pensions for retired teachers or municipal employees, it would have been a different story.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, May 11, 12 @ 12:24 pm
@anonymous-
Yes, apples and oranges.
Health care costs, and thus insurance premiums, skyrocket when you retire.
Although, it could be that where CMS chooses to negotiate with AFSCME is holding the line on premiums and instead adopting strategies like reducing benefits and increasing copays.
We shall see….
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, May 11, 12 @ 12:27 pm
YDD -
And that is why Bomke is setting the bar for Lame Ducks and when they start head-counting … whose to say they will have the numbers needed.
We are talking around the same thing I guess, but I look at Bomke’s vote as spineless when you are not facing the voters again, and bomke ain’t adding to the solution, along with many others, mind you, and Bomke takes the easy way out.
It’s fair to ding him on it. Let’s see how Larry handles all the other “tough” decisions.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 11, 12 @ 12:29 pm
IT AIN’T GONNA FLY. IT IS A VAIN ATTEMPT TO SADDLE RETIREES WITH THE BURDEN THE STATE CAUSED IN THE FIRST PLACE. THEY THINK THE AFSCME IS A PUSH OVER AND THEY HAVE PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT THAY ARE NOT. I LIVED THROUGH YEARS OF THIS BS AS A STATE EMPLOYEE. THE UNION FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO GET THESE BENEFITS AND ARE NOT GOING TO LIE DOWN FOR THIS OUTRAGE. THE POINT OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BILL WILL PLAY OUT IN THE END AND RETIREES WILL LAND ON THEIR FEET ONCE AGAIN.
Comment by DAVE Friday, May 11, 12 @ 12:39 pm
Two points.
First, I would almost guarantee the rate to cover a retiree and his or her spouse is close to $1000 a month. If that’s the case, even a sliding scale premium surcharges makes the plan affordable.
Second, retirees could decide to drop state coverage and pick up Medicare Parts A & B and then purchase a low-cost supplemental plan to cover the 20% which Medicare does not cover.
Granted, the state is a major self-insurer and can bargain with providers to get a reduced rate on group insurance, but that only goes so far. When you look at how low many co-payments are for formulary medications and hospital stays, that free insurance rule really cost the state a bit when considering how many retirees benefit from such a policy. Again, the basic numbers would likely indicate just how much the state can recoup each year from a small-to-medium premium surcharge.
And I really do think they next item for review needs to be the aforementioned low co-payments. It’s inconceivable that the state can keep allowing for $275 co-payments for the birth of a child and $150 to $200 co-payments for surgeries. Those numbers are unsustainable - even with the manner in which the state negotiates costs.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, May 11, 12 @ 12:40 pm
I am a retiree and I’m not a AFSCME memeber. But they have been given the right to bargain for my rights, By who? I guess we will be paying fair share soon like thechampaignlife stated. So I can sue AFSCME and the state for an unfair Labor Practice. I can see this being in the State and Federal courts for years.
Comment by Bob Friday, May 11, 12 @ 12:48 pm
===I guess we will be paying fair share soon===
Oh, take a breath already.
AFSCME was the group that got you the health insurance premium subsidy to begin with. Then they lobbied to put it into statute after they won it through collective bargaining.
Come to think of it, they probably got you health insurance.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 11, 12 @ 12:51 pm
Not enough moxie?
Isn’t he supposed to be representing the people of his district?
Comment by Moxie Friday, May 11, 12 @ 12:54 pm
Why hasn’t anyone suggested that the general assembly retirement fund be rolled over into the regular retirement fund? Then make the legislators operate under the same rules as a regular state employee. How much money is in the general assembly’s retirement fund?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 11, 12 @ 1:01 pm
RNUG: I’d be interested in seeing a list of those hard decisions you mentioned Bomke making. He’s been my Senator since I could remember and I have never once heard him speak out loud or had any interaction with him whatsoever. Seems to me that so long as he claims to be pro-life and that the spending has to stop (outside his district), he doesn’t have to do anything else to get reelected.
Comment by Colossus Friday, May 11, 12 @ 1:01 pm
Maybe the unions should have been in Springfield instead of Madison Wis. last year. I sincerely wish them good hunting in Court, but too bad they have to go there. Get it to the Supremes as soon as possible.
Comment by park Friday, May 11, 12 @ 1:01 pm
I’m not so sure AFSCME will put too much effort and treasure towards non-due paying retirees.
What ever happened to the dental insurance premiums for retirees? Did the all powerful AFSCME get that benefit reinstated?
Comment by Choice? Friday, May 11, 12 @ 1:07 pm
what happens when they don’t come to an agreement?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 11, 12 @ 1:09 pm
JCAR oversight is meaningless. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, JCAR has the authority to object to a rule if it is contrary to statutory authority or does not constitute an emergency. The bill that was passed specifically states that these rules can filed as emergency rules. The bill also states gives CMS broad authority to determine rates. Therefore, absent a gross dereliction by CMS, ANY emergency rule submitted by CMS cannot be objected to by JCAR. Furthermore, where in the bill does it say that CMS must do any negotiating on the amount?
This bill does not contain any controls whatsoever. WHo is kidding who?
Comment by Anon Former JCAR Atty Friday, May 11, 12 @ 1:43 pm
I have read SEVERAL other ideas but all we are reading about is what the State can take away from State workers and retirees as if they should hold the entire State deficit burden on their backs. Just because this is where the biggest fund raiser can be taken from doesn’t make it constitutional. When my personal finances are struggling, the savings comes from all aspects of spending. A little everywhere brings huge savings when all combined and it hurts less. Come on people, let’s make cuts everywhere to be fair to the State workers who have dedicated their lives to serve this State:
Here are some suggestions I can remember over the years that doesn’t get serious mention:
• Savings: Combine all State workers into one retirement with the same rules (GA/legislators included, no specials)
• Savings: Bracket current health coverage for working and retired employees to choose between (medically proven) WELL Health (with a higher deductible); MEDIUM health (with a lower deductible); BAD health (with the lowest deductible). The premium the State pays for younger employees who never see a doctor is the same for the retired person who sees a doctor every week. Duh, something is wrong here.
• Savings: Cut costs across all State funded programs. Do we really need all this wasted spending? You all know that there are cuts that can be made here.
• Savings: Get rid of consultants and hire full time employees to add to the pension fund. That is what it was designed to do. The cost we are spending on one job for a consultant is in the millions. That is enough to hire 5 or more employees for one consultant worker.
• Savings: Get CMS under control!!! The amount CMS is charging the State agencies is absolutely outrageous. Come on, doesn’t anyone see it? Oh yes you do. They will be making the decision on health care!!! Oh boy.
• Savings: Stop the ridiculous hiring of those political employees starting at $60,000 (and way way up) per year to only be called Staff Assistants (What is that and what do they do? Oh nothing from what we can see) or Deputy Directors. Really, how many (chiefs and no Indians) existed before this administration? They don’t even make the decisions. And let’s not forget those 60 day emergency hires…How much do they make and how do they magically become a full time employee and in a union position? (more than a lot of us will ever make) Wooo, lets sweep that under the rug!!!
• Savings: STOP mismanaging OUR money for votes!
• Savings: Raise Taxes!!! This is absolutely fair and stop thinking about the votes. Everyone should have the burden and I mean EVERYONE!!! Employees didn’t do this, they did what they were told to do. Take less and be abused more!!!
Politics really needs to take a back seat here to protect this State and all of its citizens which includes all State workers and retirees. They did earn it however. Need any more ideas? There have been several so listen…
Comment by Need Ideas Friday, May 11, 12 @ 1:58 pm
.
Comment by . Friday, May 11, 12 @ 1:59 pm
The first former JCAR attorney is correct that JCAR review includes a review of whether the rule complies with the statutory authority for the rule. However, JCAR also has the authority to request an evaluation of the economic impact of the proposed rule. In addition, JCAR retains the authority to object the emergency rule on any basis except that the rule is not a valid “emergency.” JCAR could object to a rule that exceeds the statutory authority on which it is based. It could also object based on the economic impact of the rule, etc.
JCAR oversight is only meaningless if JCAR determines to take a “hands-off” approach.
Comment by Another Anon former JCAR Atty Friday, May 11, 12 @ 2:08 pm
It’s widely reported that retiree health care costs the state $800 million, and that there are 78,000 retirees. Roughly $10 thousand per person, or $20 thousand for a couple, per year, and sure to rise. If the State subsidizes 75% the cost is $400 per month per couple or $100 more than SURS members are paying now for Health Link plan. In theory the 25% co-pay yields $200 million. Not horrific, but over 10% of the pension of a $100 thousand dollar a year professor. Assuming retirement benefits will be taxed in the future, there goes another 5%. There goes the second car and the country club membership.
Comment by Chefjeff Friday, May 11, 12 @ 2:18 pm
Good analysis YDD “It won’t be long before the GOP members of JCAR are hosting labor fundraisers.”
Again, most private sector employees don’t get retirement health care covered. Also please remember people, we’re not talking about throwing sick senior citizens onto the street. Seniors over 65 are covered by Medicare.
Comment by siriusly Friday, May 11, 12 @ 2:29 pm
Patricia T @ 11:27 am:
Health insurance is not explicitly listed in the Constitution. People argue both ways on whether it might be protected.
The only way it is protected is if the courts, in their wisdom, decide it was deferred compensation. Illinois courts have never really tested that. In other States with similar diminishment clauses, the decisions have gone both ways on whether or not it was deferred compensation.
If it goes to court, we’ll find out in a couple of years …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, May 11, 12 @ 2:32 pm
The 78,000 figure is the appro. number currently not having premium cost. The retiree figure is more like 114,000 with these additional retirees now paying somepart of a premium.
Isn’t it time for one of Rich’s Friday afternoon music vids with a ‘crank up the volume’….I’ve had enough for this week. It’s Friday afternoon on a beautiful day, I want to enjoy what’s left of it.
Comment by Cindy Lou Friday, May 11, 12 @ 2:35 pm
Moxie, excellent point. I long for the days when the representatives we elect actually represent us. One of the senators yesterday stated he received over 3,000 calls against the bill, then he turned around and voted for it because it’s what HE felt was the right thing. “sigh”
Comment by Former Merit Comp Slave Friday, May 11, 12 @ 2:35 pm
Oswego Willy @ 10:56 am:
The only reason I mentioned his wife was in the interest of full disclosure; that I’m a personal friend as opposed having a political relationship.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, May 11, 12 @ 2:40 pm
–Come on people, let’s make cuts everywhere to be fair to the State workers who have dedicated their lives to serve this State:–
Dude, you didn’t put a dollar figure to anything. Income taxes were raised by 2/3 last winter. That club is no longer in the bag.
They’re going to whack $2.7 billion in Medicaid. You’re not the only one in the firing line here.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 11, 12 @ 2:53 pm
I’m still waiting and watching curiously to see who it is that public retirees are sharing the sacrifice with. So far all the movement seen is making public employees and retirees pay more. I look forward to seeing what sacrifices all the others will see in their lives.
Comment by Inactive Friday, May 11, 12 @ 2:58 pm
Tribidiot and sidekick Willy,
This issue has not been discussed and debated for two years - two months - or even two weeks. This Pearl Harbor manuever was delivered while employee labor leaders where at the table, with yet another “working group” .
And you think Bomke lacks grit and caved to pressures? From who exactly - his constituents ? Also, the man announce his retirement last year.
Comment by Trudat Friday, May 11, 12 @ 3:06 pm
Agree with “Need Ideas” especially with regard to consultants who do not pay into the system and the hiring instead state workers who do. Also the comments about staff assistants and Deputy Directors are right on.
Comment by JustaJoe Friday, May 11, 12 @ 3:10 pm
===This Pearl Harbor manuever ===
Oh, please. It’s been debated a while now. And MJM tipped his hand on this a while ago.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 11, 12 @ 3:24 pm
Maybe Bomke just felt it was an injustice and wrong for the state to renege on its deal to provide for retiree heath insurance after people had already retired and now have little recourse. I know I do. Also he probably also didn’t like being made to pay for his own insurance. I’m sure he’ll be at the top of whatever goofy tier system that they come up with.
It had to be refreshing for him to just vote what he felt was right for a change without regard for political ramifications.
Comment by Bill Friday, May 11, 12 @ 3:29 pm
===They’re going to whack $2.7 billion in Medicaid. You’re not the only one in the firing line here. ===
Not to mention all the other budget cuts that are coming and the late payments to service providers.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 11, 12 @ 3:29 pm
Kaiser Family Foundation 2011 Report of Employer Benefits found that covered workers contribute on
average 18% of health premiums for single coverage and 28% for family coverage, similar to the percentages they contributed in 2010. I suggest 20% as the benchmark. See summary of that report @ http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/8226.pdf
Comment by ANALYST Friday, May 11, 12 @ 3:33 pm
Rich and others are making a mistake in their analysis as to whether a pension-retirement healthcare benefit is protected by the constitution. Under the correct analysis, a court would ask, ‘what did the statute say on the dayt that you started work? If it said that you will get free healthcare when you retire, or pay nothing for the health insurance premium, then the state can’t take that benefit away from you without consideration. But if it said only that the state could contribute toward the premium, then you have no constitutional right to this benefit.’ In Chicago v. Korshak, the Court held that the city was not bound under the statute/constitution to pay the insurance premium, but that it was bound to do so under principles of quasi-contract, because the City had promised the employees that it would pay the premium.
Comment by chicagopublius Friday, May 11, 12 @ 3:53 pm
I thought that employees hired before a certain date did not participate in Medicare and are not eligible for Medicare benefits. How does this affect them?
Comment by Ike Friday, May 11, 12 @ 3:59 pm
I’m a retired police officer and already pay
1300.00 a MONTH out of pocket for health insurance
How much more can we stand
Comment by Sickout Friday, May 11, 12 @ 4:14 pm
Has anyone seen the CMS memo that describes the 7 tier plan? Rich, could you post a copy? Cannot find a copy anywhere, Cross entered it into the record during the House debate on SB1313.
Comment by thurber Friday, May 11, 12 @ 4:16 pm
I think maybe the key word in statue is “shall”…
(a-1) Beginning January 1, 1998, for each person who
becomes a new SERS annuitant and participates in the basic
program of group health benefits, the State shall contribute
toward the cost of the annuitant’s coverage under the basic
program of group health benefits an amount equal to 5% of
that cost for each full year of creditable service upon which
the annuitant’s retirement annuity is based, up to a maximum
of 100% for an annuitant with 20 or more years of creditable
service. The remainder of the cost of a new SERS annuitant’s
coverage under the basic program of group health benefits
shall be the responsibility of the annuitant.
Comment by The Law Friday, May 11, 12 @ 4:28 pm
Once they take the money for health care, how do we know it will be used to reduce the deficit?! Remember when they needed money for Education so they created the Lottery? Suddenly, the funds got rechanneled and wasn’t there for Education! I wish I had never taken a civil service job at a university! The State of Illinois has lost all credibility in my eyes.
Comment by Truthseeker Tuesday, May 15, 12 @ 9:52 pm