2007 House Bill 5454 (Repeal public employer health insurance competitive bid requirement )

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Michael Sak on November 8, 2007, to repeal the provision of the public employer health insurance pooling plan (Public Act 106 of 2007) passed as part of the 2007-2008 budget and tax increase deal that required requires public employers, including school districts, to get four competitive bids when purchasing employee health insurance.
- Referred to the House Education Committee on November 8, 2007.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Michael Sak on November 8, 2007. New Comment

1) Always on the Teachers Backs! [by Anonymous Citizen on November 17, 2007]
I would just like to say that #1- Legislators have an average salary of 80,000, and they receive better health and retirement than any teacher I know. As someone who is friends with a teacher who is worried about this bill...no one has brought up that in a small school district, even with no names attached, board members and whomever else will know all the teachers medical business. Would you want someone knowing all of yours? In small districts it wouldn't be difficult to figure out who someone was if they had an accident or a prolonged illness...then you could see everything else that person has ever gone to the doctor for...it would be in the public record, just like pay or evaluations. Also, what is to stop insurance companies from lowballing a district in order to get the bid, then jacking the rates up the following year...right back where they started. It's interesting to think that every person who has ever sat in a classroom can judge how hard a teacher works or what they should be receiving. If only the Legislature had that kind of spotlight on them, maybe Michigan wouldn't be in this mess!
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Follow the Money [by R1Lawrence on November 17, 2007]
Mike Sac HB5454 repeal competitive Bid requirement for health care - and this from a guy that professes support a priority of “fighting the skyrocketing cost of health care.” I suppose that it’s ok to have skyrocketing costs if you contributed to Representative Sak’s campaign fund; over $7,500 from MEA and Blue Cross Blue Shield related contributors - if you don’t know the MEA via their conduit, MESSA is the third largest customer of Blue Cross Blue Shield - a classic case of follow the money people!

Reply New Comment

Line

3) Follow the $$ [by Anonymous Citizen on November 13, 2007]
Something tells me that some of the extra money that MEA tacks onto the MESSA insurance premiums end up in Mr Saks re-election fund. No over priced MESSA-No money for Mr Sak. If this was a businessman using a politician to extort money out of taxpayers there would be a criminal investigation.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) NO !!! [by MTH on November 13, 2007]
Mr. Sak you are WRONG !
This law was an is an excellent idea and instead of being repealed it needs to be expanded. Lansing continually tells us what to do and then hamstrings our ability to do it.
The MEA has a big budget and I see they are continuing to spend it "wisely" in the interest of their own gluttonous profits.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Why? [by Anonymous Citizen on November 13, 2007]
Why do you want to repeal the act? What is wrong with providing information and getting bids? Something stinks about this bill.
Reply New Comment

Line

Home
Create an account
Legislation watch
Search Legislation
Search Voting Record
Reports
- Recent Laws
- Missed Votes Report
Links
About
Tell a friend about this site