Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 19, 2011

Click here to view bill details.

Here we go again!  Our idiotic legistlature and governor trying to balance the budget on the backs of State workers and Public Employees.  Cut your own pay and cut your own health care!!!!!!

 A couple thoughts immediately come to mind. I'm thankful that we get a balanced budget every year, and as a taxpayer I'm tired of carrying the heavy burden of paying the entire cost of public employee health benefit plans. As a licensed insurance agent, I know a lot about this subject. Co-pays have magical power. They actually cause grown men to care about the cost something they never even thought about in the past. In other words, if someone else buys it for you, who cares what it costs. But, if you have to pay 20% of the cost of something, you care about the total cost. And eventually, you'll actually make an effort to bring that total cost down to lessen your 20% burden. We need more of that "magic" back in government again.

 silentnomore, your comments are not true.  I work for county government and this is not co-pays.  It is 20% of the premium over and above any co-pays, prescriptions and deductables.  For a family of 4 in my county this will cost the worker almost $3600 per year.  This is not acceptable with the average clerical gross salary is $25,000 per year.  Might as well quit working and go on welfare........it pays better!

 

desmond_21:

For a family of 4 in my county this will cost the worker almost $3600 per year.

And therein lies the problem.  If 20% of the cost of your health plan amounts to $3,600, it means your plan costs $18,000 per year.  A family plan in my business costs about $8,000 per year and my employees demand that I continually shop for the best value plans because they pay 25% of the cost.  20% of $8,000 is $1,600.  With no participation in the cost of your insurance you don't care what it costs.  Now you do.

The problem really is that I as an educator have continued my education throughout my career as mandated by law.  I have more education than most corporate bosses, yet I make a very small amount of salary comparatively.  The benefits are and were given to me to offset the low pay.  Now not only are we not worth the pay, we are not worth the benefits.  Tell that to my students that I work with daily.  It no longer pays to be a great teacher!

 Unfortunately, this bill will most likely result in a reduction to charitble giving and overall spending in the ecomony.  Sure, some may feel gratified that public employees are finally getting their due.  However, paying 20% is a substantial cut for the vast majority of public sector employees and it will be creating a hardship for many.  This is, in essence, a large pay reduction for most.  I'm not sure how many within the public or private sector can absorb such a cut without an effect on something. 

 changeagent,  Where do you get family health care for $8000 per year?  I have been involved in researching health insurance for the last 4 years and all companies charge the same for premiums.  I suppose we could go to a $5.000 or $10,000 deductable to reduce premiums and then the ones who use it pay for it.  Problem with that is nobody would use it, so why have it. 

You don't know me, so don't tell me I don't participate.  This is a bunch of B.S.  It's not like I can say I can't afford it and do without heath care now that Obamacare tells me I have to be insured.  In the meantime you and your business will benefit greatly from the Snider tax breaks and pocket even more money on the backs of the workers.  I'll bet you don't provide more or better insurance for your employees once you no longer have to pay Michigan small business tax.

Where are the real republicans?  One of their mantras is reduce the regulations.  Oh, that is only for corporations!  For individuals micro management and regulations is the name of the game.  The end of democracy and the end of the middle class.  Throw the bums out before we become a third world country with the wealthy having everything and the working folks fighting over crumbs.

 Just how does this pertain to the topic. Go trolling somewhere else for your illegal's. Once we get the whiney teachers and govt. employees to start paying their fair share then maybe they can start working on kicking out the sorry ass illegal's. Then we could really start saving money. NO FREE healthcare, NO FREE food stamps, NO FREE lunch for their anchor babies, NO FREE anything for these invaders. 

desmond_21:

Where do you get family health care for $8000 per year?

That rate is available through use of BCBS high deductible plans combined with a HRA we set up to help pay our employees deductibles.

desmond_21:

I suppose we could go to a $5.000 or $10,000 deductible to reduce premiums and then the ones who use it pay for it.  Problem with that is nobody would use it, so why have it. 

Perhaps that is what all health "insurance" should be.  Insurance is intended to help balance risks against cost, not to cover every cost and eliminate all risks.  I see no reason we should be purchasing health insurance that covers routine doctors visits and every other cost associated with our health care.  Insurance should cover major medical costs that are beyond the reach of most people.

desmond_21:

In the meantime you and your business will benefit greatly from the Snider tax breaks and pocket even more money on the backs of the workers.

And you don't know be either so don't presume to understand how my business works.  We don't do anything on the backs of anyone. Your statement implies that employees are slaves.  Each of our employees works here because they choose to do so and they are free to leave at any time (and several have over the years with no notice or concern about the business or the other employees they place in hardship on by doing so).  As an employer, I am not so lucky.  I have "rules" to follow.  If I no longer wish to purchase the talents of an employee I must justify my choice by proving that I have a good reason.  If they are angry because they were no longer beneficial to my business and I discontinued their service, they can sue me and create thousands of dollars in legal cost just to be a pain a know that my insurance company will likely settle with them for a few thousand dollars to make them go away.

desmond_21:

I'll bet you don't provide more or better insurance for your employees once you no longer have to pay Michigan small business tax.

That depends on what I need to do to get the high quality employees I need to run a competitive business.  In 2008 when we lost over $100K I didn't have one employee come in and ask if they could pitch in to help cover our losses.  3 years later and we still haven't recovered that loss, let alone made additional profit.  When we do make a decent profit, that money typically is reinvested into the business to try to make it grow and, hopefully, earn a greater profit.  When we do that, we employ more high quality people.

I can assure you of one thing.  If you were ever to apply for job with me and you spouted that "on the backs of the workers" Marxist crap, you would be politely told "don't call us, we'll call you".  Which is why you work for the government.

 changeagent,

Once the federal gov't made it mandatory for people to have health insurance it became a right and not a privilege to have coverage.  I for one would want my employer to provide the best posible insurance as I as an employee pay for it in a round about way yet have no say what type of insurance I would like.

You have a company that now can save lots and lots of money because you no longer have to pay the small business tax.  You say "when we do make a decent profit, that money typically is reinvested into the business to try to make it grow and, hopefully, earn a greater profit."  What the hell does that mean!?  Is a decent profit $100 or $1000 or $100,000,000,000?  "that money typically is reinvested into the business", again what the hell does that mean?!!!!  You talk like a politician.  I'm beginning to think you don't even own a business.

p.s.  I would never work for self centered ass like you, so you can keep paying your slaves their pennies while you screw them.

My only comment to some of these comments is that you both seem to lack the understanding of the other ones struggles the whole process of compromise is wasted on hate and seemingly believing that we are not in this together. Business and employee need a win-win scenario for a good outcome for all.  There really is no need to attack all government employees and you are being extremly predjudice in doing so.   I work very hard for the money I earn working for a local government and all I have asked in return is to be able to support my family, I certainly don't live the life style of the rich and famous.  I put in long hours, make sacrifices and not only for my own gain, I do it also for my community and the people I serve.

 Well said

 

Senator Young’s statement is as follows:
I don’t want to disappoint. I want to start with a quote: “The people are the only legitimate fountain of power and it is from them that the constitutional charter under which several branches of government hold their power is derived.”
I rise in opposition to this bill. One, I think it has constitutional concerns. Article 11, Section 5 of the Constitution clearly states that these types of decisions involving employees health care should be decided by the Civil Service Commission. We are making a huge constitutional assumption that the constitutional amendments that passed previously in the Legislature will be voted on by the people and become law. You know what happens when you assume without the facts. If it does not pass, we are looking at a lawsuit. I think that is wrong. I think that is a usurpation of the people of the state of Michigan’s rights and liberties, and more importantly, I think to violate the Constitution that we all swore an oath to support is a clear and present danger to our state’s sovereignty.
I also rise in opposition to the conference report before us which would cap the health care coverage received by state employees. Many of my colleagues have stood in this very chamber and blasted the federal government for handing down new regulations to the states—complaining about the acts of big government. The legislation before use today isn’t any different. It is an act of big government imposing its will on smaller governments. It is an act of state government getting involved in the business it has no business getting involved in, which is the affairs of local rights, whether it be school boards, municipalities, townships, or villages. In the city of Detroit, the last time I checked, we have home rule authority. Maybe we forgot about that. Maybe that’s not important. Maybe some people in this chamber think that’s overrated. I happen to think that it is not. It is in the Constitution for a reason. That means that we should allow the local units of government to handle their own affairs. 

I got elected as a State Senator to take care of the state’s issues, not dictate to my local government how to run their business. They got elected to do that. For crying out loud, can we once in this chamber talk about creating jobs and putting people back to work at some point in time? I’m going to get on my soapbox, Mr. President. This legislation is yet another step in the wrong direction of state government. Usurping local control is another example of Lansing trying to enforce a one-size-fits-all approach on our cities and local schools.
Many local governments are working to find savings that meet the needs of their communities. We should not interfere with this process by imposing these draconian measures. This bill stands against the long tradition of hometown rule and takes away the decision-making abilities of local employers and collective bargaining units. We should not be restricting the ability of cities and schools to negotiate contracts that will allow them to attract the best and brightest employees. We should allow local governments to seek concessions that make sense for their communities, and we should allow the collective bargaining process to take place. We should not be balancing the budget once again on the backs of middle-class families. This bill is making it harder for middle-class workers to afford health care for themselves and their children. With so many people living in Michigan without health insurance, we should be passing legislation to make health care more affordable.
I ask my colleagues to reject this conference report and refocus our energy on policies that will foster job growth and a better quality of life for our citizens. I think this legislation is making this state walk off the plank to perdition. I think it is wrong. I think it is unconstitutional. I think it is illegal. I think it is an abomination. I think we should vote this bill down.

Senator Colbeck’s statement is as follows:
When I decided to run for this seat, one of the most frustrating things for me as a private citizen was noticing that there only seemed to be two solutions in Lansing to solve any budget crisis that we dealt with. No.1 was we raise taxes, and No. 2 was we go and lay off people. Senate Bill No. 7 is proof that there is another option. We can look at how we are actually spending the money and where the expenses are being derived.
There is no denying that anybody in private or public business that health care costs are a major driver, yet for too long, what has been happening in health care for a lot of public employees throughout the state is it is like going to the grocery store with your shopping car, picking everything you want off the shelf and putting it in your shopping cart, going to the cashier, and when you get to the cashier, you say the guy behind you is going off and paying for it. Senate Bill No. 7 now introduces the idea that we have to be conscious about where these costs are going. We can’t afford the $30,000- or $40,000-a-year health care policies that have been prevalent in a lot of public institutions. It is about time that we recalibrate.
I want to put in context how much this bill means in practical terms. We heard from a lot of my colleagues a lot of rhetoric from the other side of the aisle when we had to deal with the school aid budget recently. Roughly, we debited the state aid to schools by roughly 3 percent. To put this in context, we were told that was the end of public education as we know it, and it was devastating to public schools. I’ve got to tell you, take just one of my school districts, the Plymouth-Canton School District, where we debited their school aid by about $4 million. If they would have adopted the practices that are adopted inside Senate Bill No. 7 when they put together their budgets, they would have had a cost savings of $9.2 million. That is a net increase of $5.2 million in that school district. We need to be looking at how we are spending that money and getting past this rhetoric. We need to have a balanced discussion of what is going on the revenue side of the equation, as well as the expense side.
I want to applaud the Senator from the 28th District for his leadership on this bill. I know that he has been working on it for quite a while, and I am just glad to be able to support him and the rest of my colleagues in moving this legislation forward. I urge adoption of this conference report. It is a game changer for Michigan, and we can finally get out of the only two solutions we have used in the past and start looking at how we are spending the money.

Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows:
Mr. Lieutenant Governor, I hope your child is doing better as well as your family.
Once again, we are continuing a trend that I think is unhealthy for our state. I have a great deal of faith and confidence in my local school boards, and I have an equal amount of confidence in those who negotiate on behalf of the collective bargaining units and on behalf of teachers and staff in our local schools. I think this is one more attempt to usurp a fair and balanced process.
I don’t believe our major concern is who pays for health care as much as how much it costs. Through this process, I haven’t seen a singular effort to reduce the cost of health care. That should be our first priority. How do we control the cost regardless of whether the school district or the individual is picking up that responsibility? Eventually, the families and the school districts themselves, the way this is parsed out, will not have the ability to provide the health care that we need. We look at Michigan schools and our youth and the tremendous issue with obesity. We look at the very drastic rise in diabetic concerns. We see all of these issues that are leading up to high health care costs. That should be our purpose today, not deciding who is going to pay for what. We are saying that we can determine the parsing out of this cost. I think we should do better than that. I think we should address what is making that cost rise annually.

Many of us represent some really tough school districts. I think we have heard when we were talking about usurping local control through the emergency financial legislation that was passed earlier this year that we are going to have a hard time finding teachers who are going to want to teach in these school districts. We know that the average starting salary for a teacher in our state is about $34,000. A lot of people have altered their career choices in recent times because of the job market. If your starting salary going into the education sector is about $34,000, you have a family and now you are going to say that the family’s obligation is going to be $11,000, that puts you in the lower $20,000 pay bracket. We are going to be paying our educators less; those whom many of us would hope would be the best people. We are going to reduce their take-home pay down to $23,000 in many cases. That is not the best choice. I want our best teachers, and I want them compensated with worthwhile compensation.
We shouldn’t be meddling in these local affairs. I think, once again, because we are overreaching our office obligations, we are really putting up some impediments to future decisions by our local communities. My “no” vote will be based on no cost-containment effort and once again usurping local control

Senator Anderson’s statement is as follows:
Hypocrisy, I just find it amazing that anyone would support this bill would get up and make statements about the federal government dictating to us at the state level what we must and must not do. Yet we are superimposing our will on a matter that has always been a local issue, a locally-negotiated issue between the employees of a community or a school district, and we are doing the very same thing if you vote for this bill.
This Legislature and every legislature have always provided funding through the mechanism of revenue sharing. Now we are trying to dictate decisions that they have always made when they negotiate with their employees. It is truly hypocrisy, and Iam just amazed that we continue to go down that road of dictating those local decisions to our local school districts and our local communities and townships. It is just unbelievable that we are continuing to go down that road. I think we have more important things to do at hand, and we need to do what we can to create jobs in this state. We need to stop trying to micromanage and continue with the policy that Lansing knows everything and knows best. We will dictate to you what you can and cannot do.
For those on the other side who ran on less government, how can you say that with a straight face?

 Don't you (MORON) know that some of us are on a FIXED income (SOCIAL SECURTY) and if you MORON pass this legislation it will put all of us senior in the poor house even deper than Obama has. (WHY) don't you lazy good for nothing wake up and pass legislation that would make all of the state Legislator go to (PART TIME) and the state would have all kind of money to flush down the toilet like what you are doing now.

This is the principal reason our health care in this country is so expensive as compared to almost every other modern nation. The notion that insuring only against major medical cost almost guarantees that people will forgo regular checkups and monitoring their health because of the expense involved. This, naturally, leads to more complicated and serious medical issues down the road, increasing the cost of treatment, and thus increasing insurance premiums. I realize this bill addresses only public employees, but it zeros in on the rising cost of health care for all of us. It is past time we realize that it is inefficient, expensive, and inhumane to deny people the benefits of modern medicine because of their economic situation. We need to go from providing health care through private insurance to a single payer system, as most of the rest of the world does. For the taxpayer and business owner, it's cheaper. For the moralist, it's the right thing to do.

Addressing desmond_21:

 

 I am amazed at the idiotic suggestion that people are not involved in the cost of insurance plans.  Employers are the ones who make the choices as to who they insure their employees.  I am a Union President and involved in looking at benefits each contract year.  Our goal is the same as the employer. "How can we keep costs down".  When I am at the table I am presented with what company the Employer wants to use and the plans that exist under that company.  This new state mandated law will impact these employees, increasing their premiums to $4200 dollars per year out of pocket expense, not to mention a 3000/6000 HSA that they will need to contribute to.  How fair is it that the state employees are having to balance the budget when the executives and excessive wasteful spending has not been addressed first?  You can not run this state as if it were a business.  People should not be the first choice to harm, especially in this economy, in order to balance the budget.  The changes should come from the top down, not the bottom up!!

 Government employees and the unions that represent them....teachers included....have been gutting the taxpayers of this state for decades.  It's about time they pay 20% of the costs associated with their medical insurance just like those of us in the private sector....you know, the ones who pay for your salaries and benefits....salaries and benefits that typically exceed ours.   Public employees and their unions continue to whine about how bad it is for them to shoulder such burdens but the rhetoric continues to disregard the rest of us....again, those of us who continue to foot the bill for government excesses.  It's about time government employees rejoin the real world out here.  It has become all too obvious that government employees don't give a damn about those of us who pay for your salaries and benefits.  All you're concerned with is that you continue to get a free ride at someone else's expense. 

I'll go one step further....the number of government employees in this state, at all levels, should be cut no less than 30%.  What do they do for us anyway, except spend our money?  Department of Education?  An ugly joke.  Our kids are getting a lousier education every year.  Department of Transportation?  Our roads are some of the worst in the United States.  Department of Labor?  We all can see what a great job the unions have done on our state economy.  Social Services?  One of the nastiest and most despicable functions every foisted onto the backs of productive citizens.  With dropout rates as high as they are in our cities, it's obvious that many people are "choosing" to be uneducated and therefor unemployable.  The only persons who should bear the burden of that "choice" are the dropouts.  Part of the cost of freedom is personal responsibility and the state has chosen to place that responsibility onto the backs of productive citizens.  The state has created and continues to perpetuate a class of parasites who consume more and more of the state budget every year.  There were far fewer folks on welfare when the state was not in the business of writing checks to those folks who in many cases "choose" to live at the expense of others.

Police and Fire departments?  Always the most important, along with "quality education", to our safety and well-being and always the first to be threatened with cuts in manpower and funding in attempts to force more money from taxpaying citizens.  Extortion in any language.

The simple fact is that our state and local governments are out of control.  They have a never-ending appetite for the incomes generated by productive citizens and a never-ending inclination to spend that money where it will do the most good....for their political futures, their special-interest friends and on behalf of the growing number of parasites [corporate and individual] who will cast their votes in favor of more and more state spending of privately generated wealth. 

 Where have you been living?  Michigan IS a third-world country....thanks to unions and social programs galore.  Whatever happened to the concept of personal responsibility?  Since when is it moral for corporations or individuals to make their problems my problems?  That is the root of the mess we find ourselves in.

 You may have "more" education than the business people you seem to mock. If you are so confident about your knowledge and capabilities, you ought to do as the rest of us and search out a better paying and more fulfilling job.  No one forces you to be a teacher.  Your argument is an empty one.  It makes no sense when compared to the realities faced by those in the private sector who pay for your salary and benefits.  The ugly truth is that teachers are no more valuable that any other vocation, although you would have us believe it to be so.  As they say, if you don't like it....move.  Better yet, put your education to work and start your own business.  Reality is what it is, in spite of one's wish for it to be something else.

desmond_21 - I don't want to sound petty, but I hope you aren't a teacher. You don't even know how to spell Governor Snyder's name.

Funny how our legislators haven't been able to find the time to mandate limits their own pay and benefits...like the lifetime health benefits after a couple of terms. 

Bunch of incompetent hypocrites. 

 

I am a state employee in Michigan who will be directly affected by this bill.  Even though it adversely affects me, I support the bill.  Everyone I work with is stark-raving mad about it though.

We are over-paid here for what we do, and the health-care plan is Cadillac.  I've taken the attitude that I should enjoy it while it lasts, but it's unsustainable.  Government is bloated and inefficient.

 

There are a lot of really good people working here who care deeply about the community that they serve, but the expectations for compensation and benefits are really high.  I see a lot of people thinking that just because they are a public employee then they are more noble than someone working in the private sector.  Nonsense.  I've always looked at it like, "If I did this exact same job in the private sector how much would I be paid?"  Undoubtedly, it would be lower.

As to the argument that some have made that Republicans shouldn't be micromanaging things, it's perfectly fine for government to micromanage itself.  Governments should be regulating themselves.  All businesses regulate themselves in order to improve.  Government should not be micromanaging the overall economy or private companies or individuals.

Government setting spending limits on itself is merely being prudent and responsible.

 

Some of us public employees stand with the taxpayers, so try not to lump us all together.

The best part of your article is that it can be found no where else on the whole web. It keeps me coming back to the site just to search for your write-ups

Regrads,

generic viagra online

eb44345:

I am a state employee in Michigan who will be directly affected by this bill.  Even though it adversely affects me, I support the bill.  Everyone I work with is stark-raving mad about it though.

We are over-paid here for what we do, and the health-care plan is Cadillac.  I've taken the attitude that I should enjoy it while it lasts, but it's unsustainable.  Government is bloated and inefficient.

 

There are a lot of really good people working here who care deeply about the community that they serve, but the expectations for compensation and benefits are really high.  I see a lot of people thinking that just because they are a public employee then they are more noble than someone working in the private sector.  Nonsense.  I've always looked at it like, "If I did this exact same job in the private sector how much would I be paid?"  Undoubtedly, it would be lower.

As to the argument that some have made that Republicans shouldn't be micromanaging things, it's perfectly fine for government to micromanage itself.  Governments should be regulating themselves.  All businesses regulate themselves in order to improve.  Government should not be micromanaging the overall economy or private companies or individuals.

Government setting spending limits on itself is merely being prudent and responsible.

 

Some of us public employees stand with the taxpayers, so try not to lump us all together.

 

 Very well said,I agree with everything you have written.

Admin003:

Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows:
Mr. Lieutenant Governor, I hope your child is doing better as well as your family.
Once again, we are continuing a trend that I think is unhealthy for our state. I have a great deal of faith and confidence in my local school boards, and I have an equal amount of confidence in those who negotiate on behalf of the collective bargaining units and on behalf of teachers and staff in our local schools. I think this is one more attempt to usurp a fair and balanced process.
I don’t believe our major concern is who pays for health care as much as how much it costs. Through this process, I haven’t seen a singular effort to reduce the cost of health care. That should be our first priority. How do we control the cost regardless of whether the school district or the individual is picking up that responsibility? Eventually, the families and the school districts themselves, the way this is parsed out, will not have the ability to provide the health care that we need. We look at Michigan schools and our youth and the tremendous issue with obesity. We look at the very drastic rise in diabetic concerns. We see all of these issues that are leading up to high health care costs. That should be our purpose today, not deciding who is going to pay for what. We are saying that we can determine the parsing out of this cost. I think we should do better than that. I think we should address what is making that cost rise annually.

Many of us represent some really tough school districts. I think we have heard when we were talking about usurping local control through the emergency financial legislation that was passed earlier this year that we are going to have a hard time finding teachers who are going to want to teach in these school districts. We know that the average starting salary for a teacher in our state is about $34,000. A lot of people have altered their career choices in recent times because of the job market. If your starting salary going into the education sector is about $34,000, you have a family and now you are going to say that the family’s obligation is going to be $11,000, that puts you in the lower $20,000 pay bracket. We are going to be paying our educators less; those whom many of us would hope would be the best people. We are going to reduce their take-home pay down to $23,000 in many cases. That is not the best choice. I want our best teachers, and I want them compensated with worthwhile compensation.
We shouldn’t be meddling in these local affairs. I think, once again, because we are overreaching our office obligations, we are really putting up some impediments to future decisions by our local communities. My “no” vote will be based on no cost-containment effort and once again usurping local control

 Hey John , 20% of a $15000.00 health plan is $3000.00 not $11000.00. This is not the first time I caught you with fuzzy math.

 

 That $15000 health plan is going to have an $8000 deductible on top of your $3000 so the math is not so fuzzy.

  Sen. Mark Jansen... Thank you so very much and feel free to run for Governor. 

Almost a year later, I am now paying higher co-pays, no longer have coverage for some health care and I am also paying 20% of my health care coverage. No one else in my district, besides Teachers are making this sacrifice, not bus drivers, food service, administrators, or support staff. I have been given no raise for over 3 years and now I hear they are going to change my retirement. Apparently the public does not want quality people teaching their children....anyone will do and it looks as though that is the direction the powers at be want it. I am now looking for work in the private sector.

I wonder...... if people working for the state and for local schools have it so awesome, why the people against good pay for good work did not become one themselves? Last I looked, colleges are still training teachers.

If you do not feel you earn the pay you receive, shame on you for not standing up and giving back. I am sure there is more to your job that you are not doing to earn your pay, again, shame on you!

Generalities, generalities. If you want some sympathy, give me numbers. 

The health insurance for my wife and I costs about $350 a month and we feel fortunate it is only that much (so far). It is a 20%-80% plan that goes to 100% after several thousands of dollars, that number I am not sure of right now. Our co-pays are $25 for every visit. The coverage is pretty good but not great. Unlike MESSA our plan wouldn't cover a sex change should we be so inclined. I realize that teachers healthcare plans vary slightly from district to distict under MESSA and I can only speak of two that I have been familiar with. Until now the Kalamazoo school district teachers contributed 0 toward premiums.  Portage school district teachers at one time only contributed $100.00 a month for which everyone admitted were amazing healthcare benefits..

For all I know your 'higher co-pay' may mean you now pay $5 per visit, and the lost coverage you refer to my be the sex change benefit I refered to earlier. I understand why you would be upset at paying 20% of MESSA coverage. You are now learning what school districts around the state have been dealing with for years, that MESSA is ridiculously over priced. That is why TEACHERS in several districts around the state have opted out of MESSA and gone with other insurers.

Now, in closing, let me say that I have the highest respect for teachers and I believe they should be some of the highest taxpayer paid professionals in the state. I also believe they should be held to a higher standard in terms of performance reviews and continuing education. I like to think for the most part they already are. 

Thank you for your respect. I would like to clarify, I have not had Messa insurance in over a year. We changed carriers a while ago, and my co-pay is $20 per office call and $40 per prescription that does not have a generic and $20 for a generic. I work on average 10-12 hours per day and also during the summer. I take the classes required of me during the summer and volunteer to do whatever work is needed to prepare for the next school year. That could include scheduling of students, classes or new policy changes ect. When I leave my job, I am never done. I work hard but actually LOVE what I do and hope and pray that everyday, I am making a difference.

 desmond_21, as an independent licensed Health/Life insurance agent, you're either a very young man, or you're not being honest about "all companies charge the same premiums".

Your premiums are based on the cost of living in your home town, and on your sex and age and the resulting risk of you becoming ill or injured. Those odds are determined by statisticians, and different company actuaries come to different conclusions and that influences the rates for coverage. You should also become aware that the elapsed time between hospitalizations for the entire US population is more than 20 yrs, and when you consider childbirth and ill senior citizens, the odds of you being hospitalized is extremely low. So take advantage of that, buy a Health Savings Acct, start socking away the money in it in a tax-advantaged fashion, and smile all the way to the bank. After a couple of years of this, you'll be able to pay cash for anything medically necessary AND you will become a wealthy man in your later years from all of the unused money in that HSA.

All in all, I don't think this bill was meant to harm citizens, and if someone has some doubts about its legitimacy they can go ahead and do their research. I too am covered and I do pay quite a lot, but once I started talking to my agent, I realized I could get a lot of things covered, including whey protein powder for my wife's physical therapy. So as long as you stay informed, you can't not find the benefits.