By now, you are seeing all kinds of articles and stories about Speaker Dillon's proposed plan to place all public employee into a statewide health care plan. The results of this plan would slash your health coverage and strip your rights to bargain about them. His proposal is anti-union, anti-collective bargaining and anti-public school employee. He maintains his idea could save up to $900 million, but his numbers don’t add up and he won’t provide information or legislation to back up his claims.
This plan has gotten a lot of press – and MEA has been at the heart of this fight for the health care that keeps you and your family safe. But to win this debate, we continue to need your help in getting the facts out and ensure that your legislators in Lansing understand how strongly we oppose the Speaker’s scheme (which is nothing more than a PR stunt to fuel his run for governor).
What are the facts?
- During the past three years, Michigan’s school employees have already saved taxpayers more than $700 million in health insurance costs by accepting lower cost health coverage or paying more out of pocket for copays and premiums.
- Through salary and wage concessions during the past three years, Michigan school employees have saved taxpayers an additional $200 million. That’s almost a billion dollars in savings for Michigan taxpayers paid for by public school employees alone. And state and municipal employees are giving in huge numbers as well.
- In order to save $900 million, Speaker Dillon's plan would have to massively cut school employee health care premiums – some by as much as half. That's not efficiency or a small trim – that's gutting the health insurance of thousands of Michigan workers and their families.
- Savings can’t come from efficiency alone. In fact, research shows that once you get more than 20,000 people in a health care pool, there are no more cost savings to be gained – and virtually all public employees are already in pools bigger than that.
- As taxpayers, this isn’t a savings to you – it’s simply a cost shift that attempts, yet again, to balance the budget on your back.
- Dillon’s plan will eliminate any local control over costs and benefits. Why should we strip local school districts and local governments of the ability to collectively bargain with employees to make decisions that are right for their communities?
- Health care is a national problem that requires a national solution – one that our leaders in Washington are working on right now. For the first time, Washington is on the verge of actually controlling the cost of health care and expanding coverage to all Americans. Speaker Dillon’s plan does neither.
Your legislators in Lansing need to hear these facts. They need to stand up and demand that the Speaker provide details and legislation to back up his claims. They need to defend the health care and bargaining rights of half a million Michigan public workers and their families.
Take time to contact your legislators and communicate the points above.
Posts
I'm not saying I agree with Speaker Dillon's plan, but where is the citation showing where the MEA's numbers are coming from? Certainly that would make a stronger argument. Also, in the literature being sent to teachers, it's exaggeration to say that that the coverage would be "dialed up or down every year". Ask any state worker -- they are not facing YEARLY changes in their health care. Also regarding the comment "you would have no choice in health plans." Does anyone? Typically, people don't negotiate their health care, ask the state workers! And do we TRULY have it now? I know the last change in our contract didn't feel like a choice...we've had more changes in health care in the last 10 years than my friends/family who work at the state. And recently, when it comes down to bargaining, what's the issue the contracts hinge on? Health care and usually it's cutting it.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, I'm not saying I agree with Speaker Dillon, but maybe the MEA should be a little more common sense about how they're trying to fight it...explosive language and scare tactics are so silly and typical of a union. Give people credit and speak to them as adults. Show me numbers, not crystal ball predictions. And might I say that the MEA saying no to "big government" and "regulation" sounds awfully Republican of them...
Thanks for the comments, Anonymous. Before addressing your comments, especially when mentioning changes in your contract, give us a first name and your local or use an identity that is created through some other forum (Google, LiveJournal, etc). Typically, we moderate comments from Anonymous postings since it is easy for EAG or other similar groups to hide behind the anonymouity.
ReplyDeleteLet's set the record straight first. This is not an MEA battle; this is an organized labor battle. Dillon's anti-union, anti-collective bargaining rights proposal would negatively impact all unionized public employees and lead Michigan down the path to being a right to work state. Every union in Michigan is concerned with what Speaker Dillon has proposed and working with their members to stop this from happening.
Unionized public employees have seen less changes to their health insurance because they have bargained what those changes might have been. Non-unionized public employees don't have that ability, therefore, resulting in more changes in the health care. Speaking of friends/family, my friends that are unionized public employees have seen far less changes than my friends that are nonunionized. Ancedotal evidence is just that...all depends on who you speak to. As far as MEA's facts, many of the facts concerning on what MEA members have given up over the past 3 years come from our research department that uses the numbers given to the state by local districts.
As far as your personal contract example, it appears that you refer to the bargaining process. Not knowing your situation, you may have bargained a change in your health care in order to get a little bit more salary or maybe another improvement within your contract.
MEA sounds Republican with what is perceived as an anti-big government stance? While initially embracing Dillon's idea, I think that many state Republicans are having second thoughts since it will require them to vote for big government/less local control. These are strange times that we live in my friend.