She's either for collective bargaining or she isn't. I'm not buying it
You are right, we do need single payor, and I have co-sponsored legislation to make this happen. Unfortunately, we don't have single payor and we won't have it in the near future, so we're stuck with the mess we have.
I wanted to email you to let you know my reasoning in supporting the further amendment regarding municipal healthcare plan design and to explain what that amendment proposes and what it doesn't propose.
I did vote for the further amendment. It was a difficult vote and not the one I wanted to take, but this was the best compromise that was being offered. It would have served no one to throw this opportunity away. The amendment that passed was a strategic way to move the debate in the right direction away from where the House Ways and Means bill began.
This an early step in the process. The Senate will now have an opportunity to write their own bill or they may choose to do nothing. There will then be a conference committee to resolve any differences. By voting for the further amendment it means that the house position has already moved and the negotiations begin from a better starting place.
I had committed to leadership that I would vote for the Walsh amendment if leadership did NOT amend the original HWM proposal. I would like to think that this helped to spur negotiations. When the further amendment came out, it was clear that Rep Walsh did not then or ever have the 81 votes he needed to pass his amendment. The choice was to hold an up or down vote on the Walsh amendment ( which did not have majority support) which would have meant ending up with the original House Ways and Means proposal or support the further amendment, take this best offer and set things up for the conference committee. If we had voted the Walsh amendment and lost that vote, we would have ended up with no progress at all. This would have been the easy vote to cast and I wouldn't be having to provide this explanation to my labor friends, but in the long term, it would have been the wrong vote. By moving the amended language we have dramatically altered the House position. We have even moved beyond what the Governor's bill would do.
In all of this,what is most important is that we gained the opportunity to move this in the right direction and set it up for the conference committee. This is the new starting point, and without the further amendment this might have been the conference committee ending point.
I know the press is doing its best to spin this in the extreme. The Governor has asked everyone to "dial down the rhetoric", and I think that is important.
Since the press is glossing over the details, here are some highlights from the amendment:
Contrary to statements mischaracterizing the House plan as “Wisconsinesque, the budget measure allows a municipality – if they choose as a local option, voted by the Board of Selectmen– to seek changes to their health care plans.
If they chose not to exercise that option, labor provisions for state and municipal employees remain unchanged. Many towns may opt to make no changes. This gives towns another local tool to use or not, just as we voted to allow a local meals tax and room tax as tools for the towns. Some towns have opted in to these taxes and some have not. I would expect the same with a healthcare local option.
· Even if Towns exercise this local option, state and municipal workers will still collectively bargain over wages, retirement benefits and most other rights.
· Labor unions can still bargain over the split of premiums. Under the GIC, most state workers contribute at least 20% to the cost of their premiums. Newer State workers hired 5 or fewer years ago pay 25%. Municipal workers will bargain this. Among the towns that have already joined the GIC, the premium split varies. For example, Brookline has a 80/20 split and Holbrook has a 90/10 split.
· Under the plan, municipal workers can be no worse off than those subscribers to the largest plan offered by the Group Insurance Commission, to which state workers and legislators belong. You may want to go to
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=afagencylanding&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Insurance+%26+Retirement&L2=Oversight+Agencies&L3=Group+Insurance+Commission&sid=Eoaf to see the rates, co-pays and deductibles.
· House leaders worked hard to reach a compromise with labor officials. Under the further amendment voted on by the House, labor and retirees retain a seat at the table in crafting a new health care plan. This was a big shift from the original plan.
· Many have said that we don't need to take this step because Boston reached agreement without any legislative help so other cities and towns can as well. In fact, Boston’s agreement with its labor unions is contingent on the legislature passing municipal health insurance reform.
· We estimate that cities and towns will save more than $100 million with these changes. This means fewer overrides and fewer layoffs. Union jobs can be saved because more funding will be available for necessary municipal services.
· If the Board of Selectman votes to adopt the local option to seek changes to the healthcare plan then they will be required to submit the plan to the town’s public employee committee. The municipality and public employee committee will then have 30 days to agree on the details of the proposal as well as to negotiate the specific use of 10% of the first
year’s cost savings for health related programs for municipal employees.
· Should no agreement on plan changes be reached within the 30-day period, 20% of cost savings from the first year of implementation would be directed to health related
programs. However, should no agreement on plan changes be reached within 30 days, then either the original plan design proposal will be implemented by the municipality or they can choose to enter the GIC. Premium share will be collectively bargained.
· We have been asked repeatedl by local elected officials to find a way to ease the financial pressures at the local level. Because of the recession, we have had to cut billions from the state budget, including cuts to Chapter 70 and local aid. We are seeing override after override across the Commonwealth, some will pass, but many will fail. When they fail the budgets will be balanced by laying off school and municipal employee and by program cuts at schools and in Town Halls.
· We need to give our towns local option tools to help maintain services and still balance budgets. Health insurance plan design, the meals tax, the room tax are three tools such tools. The legislature hasn't mandated the adoption of any of these. Those are decisions that will be made locally by your Selectmen and School Committee members.
The House has wrapped up its budget debate, in a month or so the Senate will tackle the budget, and then the conference committee will work out the differences in the two budgets and both chambers will take an up or down vote on the Conference Committee report ( the final budget) before July 1st. Then the Governor can sign it or exercise his line item veto.
I'll do my best to keep you updated on this issue as we move forward.
Sarah
Rep. Sarah Peake
Room 195, State House
Boston, MA 021331
6
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
