Here's something you may believe, but which just isn't so. A lot of people have the idea that anyone who serves in the Michigan Legislature gets free, top-notch health care for life. Many of the people who think that's true are now happy because they are also under the impression that this is now over. Aren't you glad that they at least voted to end their lifetime health care benefits? I was asked this week. Even the governor contributed to the confusion the other night, praising the Michigan House for passing a bill that eliminates lifetime health care benefits for lawmakers who serve a mere six years.
Now here's the reality. First of all, the legislature hasn't finally passed anything yet. True, the House Monday did pass a bill ending healthcare benefits by a near-unanimous, 103-to-1 vote. But before they did, the Democratic leadership went back on their word and made it so it only applies to members elected in the future. Anybody serving now keeps what they have.
And the state senate hasn't even taken up the bill. We don't even know if they will. It might just die, and nothing would change. There's another flawed assumption, too. The notion that all lawmakers get free health care for life. That isn't true either. The other day I heard from a lawmaker who is in her last term and had the guts to say the truth, on the record.
State Rep. Marie Donigan of Royal Oak is completing her third and final term. Before getting elected to the legislature, she was a landscape architect for the city of Farmington Hills. I know there's a widespread belief that legislators get free lifetime health care. Even we legislators repeat it, even though we know it is not true, she said. What they are eligible for is coverage once they are 55, which is exactly what Donigan is now. The way it works is that most of the costs are borne by the Legislative Retirement System, the state, in other words. The retiree pays 10 percent, plus prescription co-pays.
That's a pretty sweet deal, she admits, and thinks it ought to be modified. I think addressing the premiums makes sense. Is 90 percent too much for the state? Should the co-pays be higher. She thinks so. But losing those benefits at her age would be a real handicap for Donigan, who is not rich. I chose to give up my retiree healthcare from Farmington Hills to work for the state. She said, if my state healthcare is repealed, I will have to start over again. However, she is aware of political realities, and her husband is running for her term-limited seat. So, she said, "I'll just vote for whatever gets put on the voting board. I just know that when it comes down to it, repealing free lifetime healthcare will be easy. Because that's not what we have now."
It doesn't now appear that she will lose any benefits, and I'm fine with that. Donigan never became a legislative star or even a committee chair, but has been a hard-working lawmaker. And she told me, "I believe that all people should have access to good healthcare and that no one should lose their benefits." What always surprises me is that everybody else doesn't think so too.
I believe that everyone should have excellent health care benefits. I have medicare for which I pay $90+ a month; and a supplemental for which I pay $234 monthly for myself and my husband.
I have friends who used to live in Michigan and now reside in Alaska. He worked briefly for Gov Blanchard, she did not. The citizens of Michigan are paying for both to receive full healthcare benefits, including dental and vision. I don't want them to lose their benefits, but don't you think they should have to pay some sort of premium like the rest of us must?
Posted by: Edith Bletcher | February 05, 2010 at 05:20 PM
Jack is profoundly dim-witted when it comes to the true cost of employee benefits. So is Ms. Donigan. To opine as to whether benefits should or shouldn't be modified presumes some knowledge of the costs and resultant taxes. It also presumes fairly detailed knowledge about actuarial valuations, bond underwritings and ratings and accounting. Jack and Ms Donigan have not very real understanding of what it really costs to provide comprehensive employee benefits to employees. Both Donigan and Jack cavalierly dispense "their feelings" about what ought to happen with no mention of the cost, demographics, impact on financial statements, etc. They are reckless, irresponsible and they are self-dealing. Jack's wife is a public school teacher with cradle to grave post-retirement benefits and defined benefit plan coverage with and cost of living adjustments. Of course Jack doesn't want this to change. Jack is an entitlement guy and he doesn't have any background, skillset, education to understand the true cost. Neither does the esteemed ex-landscape architect. How does Jack and the beleagured representative propose to address legitimate observations regarding the "benefits gap" between public and private sector? No doubt Ms. Donigan will not be a statesman-she will vote in her own interest. As for Jack-he will continue not to come clean as to his limited knowledge on these issues and his self-dealing. In this case, Jack is blind, ignorant and totally out of his depth. But that isn't new is it?
Posted by: Ivoted Forobama | February 07, 2010 at 03:02 PM
The entire amount of money legislative retiree health care currently costs is about $5 million a year, as near as I can determine, which is not exactly a king's ransom.
Incidentally, I am not married, and have no entitlement pension. However, there is one mistake in my essay; Rep. Donigan does now chair the Intergovernmental and Regional Affairs Committee.
Posted by: Jack Lessenberry | February 07, 2010 at 04:42 PM
Yeah we should just through people out on the streets when they get old. It will save tons of money and that is what it is all about. The state employees have multiple plans to choose from with different benefits and cost. If it is wrong to have these benefits, offer a plan to take care of these people, it is not fair for a person about to retire to lose the health insurance they worked 30-40 years for. All you are doing is saying this is irresponsible, offer a solution for once. Possibly rolling back benefits based on how long one has worked, to give the person time to seek other avenues to get health care insurance. You still will not give your name and that is fine, but by just deconstructing a person and not completely focusing on the issue, it is poor form. You may want to look up the straw man argument.
Posted by: Nathan F, Lansing | February 08, 2010 at 11:03 AM