Senate Republicans reject GOP plan to require public employees to pay more of health insurance costs
LANSING - Republicans in the Senate have rejected the House GOP’s version of a sweeping statewide requirement that public employees pay more for their health insurance.
The 36-0 vote Wednesday sends the bill to a conference committee where members will work over the summer to cobble together an agreement on an issue Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville says is filled with legal complications.
As passed originally, the Senate bill would limit public employers at the state and local level to paying no more than 80 percent of the cost of employee health benefit packages.
The House prefers a hard dollar limit on employer liability - $15,000 for a family plan and $5,500 for an individual policy. But the House rewrite does give school districts and local governments the option to choose the 80-20 share if they prefer a less prescriptive limit.
Gov. Rick Snyder, who in upcoming negotiations aims to secure employee benefit concessions along the 80-20 lines already in place for new workers, says he likes either approach.
A constitutional amendment that would also apply cost sharing to universities was approved by the Senate, but failed to secure the necessary two-thirds vote in the House.
Budget provisions on state aid to K-12 districts and municipalities is contingent on employees paying more for their health insurance.
Democrats argued that health care cost sharing should be accomplished through local bargaining, not a one-size-fits-all dictate from the Legislature.
Local governments, but not K-12 districts, could opt out of the requirement with a two-thirds vote of a city council or county commission.
Contact Peter Luke at 517-487-8888 ext. 235 or email him at pluke@boothmichigan.com.
Comments
Richard Lake
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 4:21 p.m.
The purpose of this effort by Republicans is simply to find more $$$ to give to big business! Petitions Are or Will Be Circulating Soon to Recall These Members of the Michigan Legislature: Sen. Randy Richardville Sen. Mike Nofs Sen. Michael L. Green Sen. Judy Emmons Sen. Darwin L. Booher Sen. Tom Casperson Sen. Roger Kahn Sen. Tonya Schuitmaker Rep. Nancy E. Jenkins Rep. Jase Bolger Rep. Al Pscholka Rep. Kurt Damrow Rep. Joel Johnson Rep. Philip N. Potvin And petitions Are Circulating to Recall Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. <a href="http://firericksnyder.org/" rel='nofollow'>http://firericksnyder.org/</a> <a href="http://firericksnyder.org/userp" rel='nofollow'>http://firericksnyder.org/userp</a> A petition is circulating also to REPEAL PUBLIC ACT 4 of 2011, "The Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act". <a href="http://michiganforward.org/?page_id=678" rel='nofollow'>http://michiganforward.org/?page_id=678</a> <a href="http://action.afscme.org/c/346/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=773" rel='nofollow'>http://action.afscme.org/c/346/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=773</a>
Betty
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 6:20 p.m.
@J.A.Pieper- Yes it applies to everyone not just k-12. k-12 just screams the loudest. They have always played the 'victim', now at least its somewhat justified. @ dotdash- I don't get it either. The AA.Com headline doesn't seem to match. It implies a rift amongst republicans and I only see a difference in % or $. In fact it sounds like very minor differences that will get resolved easily? Unless I'm missing something. @AA.com- Headline should be "Senate sends bill requiring public employees to pay more for health insurance to conference committee" (it uses the same space) It wasn't the just the Republicans it was unanimous? @Enso- Really? You are so partisan you immediately lose credibility with me. Seems like shifting the burden to employees is a done deal. Not sure this is 'right' Why 20%? Why not 50%? Why not 10%? If we keep picking arbitrary % or $ we will keep the Us vs. Them mentality. I would bet an ice cold beverage we have to revisit this in a few years...to either move it up or down. Any takers? I think it would be wiser to have public employees pay the same % as the average private employee does. Then, when times are tough the State automatically saves some money, when times are good the employees automatically get some beneifit. and neither side can point fingers and blame the other for getting too good a deal. Our leadership seems to consistently lack wisdom. Granholm and Snyder (or who ever thought this one up.) We will be having this debate over and over and over....
dotdash
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 5:43 p.m.
I'm not sure I understand all the angst here. Both houses agree in theory, right? They are just dickering over whether to spell it in dollars or percentages.. Is there an actual philosophical difference between the house and senate versions?
J. A. Pieper
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 5:23 p.m.
Would this apply to our other state employees, like the state representatives and senate members? Only then would it be fair, and not just targeting the K/12 educational system, city workers, etc.
Bogie
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 5:03 p.m.
Thank you Eagleman, it seems a lot of people these days have 'programmed responses.;' I think all of us can only dream of having the healthcare of the poor (not working poor- whole different issue). For all the gripers out there, at least Lansing is trying to do something, besides raise a fee ( it's not a tax, but a fee, in the good ol days).
eagleman
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 3:57 p.m.
Where in the article does it say that the wealthiest right wingers want the state to pay for their healthcare, Enso? What article this has to do with the poor is only Enso's guess as this piece is about public employees paying more of their health care. I;m a low level public employee and I can tell you that we are not poor.We're not rich, but we definitely are not starving.
Enso
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 3:43 p.m.
Really? Is this any surprise? The wealthiest right wingers in the state want the state to pay for their healthcare while the poorest among us are left to fend for themselves? Typical right-wing hypocrisy.
eagleman
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 6:08 p.m.
Meant NO better.
eagleman
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 6:08 p.m.
mmppcc, you are know better than Republicans. The fanaticism that comes through in your post makes me believe that I want no one like you in government. It is people like--Republican and Democrat alike--who are the gravest threat to the United States. 150 years we had a bloody, devastating, civil war because of people like you. No more. If ever there was a time to be alarmed about political fanaticism, now is that time. Tough times can and do lead to people embracing doctrinaire positions that end up helping no one and hurting everyone.
mmppcc
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 6:03 p.m.
and before someone accuses me of threats, I'm talking about no mercy when it comes to legislation against Republican interests
mmppcc
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 5:36 p.m.
Dems will be back in office eventually, and no amount of revenge legislation against Repubs will be enough to satisfy me. Republicans are the enemy; we should have no mercy.
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 3:58 p.m.
Typical left-wing platitude.