To stabilize state finances, cut costs at local level
Submitted by seachange on Sun, 2010-02-07 07:48.
Boston Globe Editorial, January 29, 2010 In his budget, Governor Patrick proposed to avoid cuts in state aid to cities and towns - an accommodation that, in practice, means dipping deeper into the state’s rainy day fund or refinancing more debt. This may be inevitable; in an election year, nobody on Beacon Hill wants to push further pain onto municipal governments. Yet lawmakers shouldn’t just take local governments’ budgets as a given. The 351 cities and towns could make do with less aid if they could bring down the costs of their employees’ pensions and health care without cutting benefits. ... To
Mom & Apple Pie
Collective bargaining is as American as mom and apple pie
Harvey E. Finkel, Brookline, Boston Globe, February 6, 2010
There’s a certain irony in the placement of the January 29 editorial, “To stabilize state finances, cut costs at local level,’’ just above one about Howard Zinn’s death and opposite the op-ed “Labor needs a new survival plan.’’ Surely we can all agree that medical costs are painfully high, yet the Globe is shamefully joining with the mob’s cry to (partially) fix the problem on the backs of working families by depriving them of a now-traditional American right, that of collective bargaining. Aiming at an easy target, aren’t you? Employers are salivating. Collective bargaining is an ingrained part of the American way. It brought dignity and fairness and minimum standards to American workers, those who, as much as any group, carried us through potential lethal crises, including several wars. Look around: Where is the money going? Hospitals and physicians are being more and more severely underpaid, medicine on the cheap that must come home to roost. Patients do not elect to undergo more medical procedures, take more medicines. Those carting the cash away are drug companies and insurance companies. (How much have they spent to defeat health legislation?) And remember: Nothing is worth spending on as much as good, accessible, comfortable health care. The United States has fallen way down on that list, while a few have profited ever more. © Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
Burden to Worker
Burden has shifted from employer to worker
Michael Grunko, President SEIU Local 509, Watertown, Boston Globe, February 2, 2010
Your editorial “To stabilize state finances, cut costs at local level’’ had some points I agree with. The proposal that Massachusetts cities and towns would save a substantial amount of money if they obtained their employee health insurance from the state’s Group Insurance Commission is correct. However, the workers covered by the GIC have been buffeted by a series of changes in premium share, copays, and changes in benefits over the last few years that have shaken workers’ confidence in the future stability of their health care. Most of these have not been actions that reduced the cost of care, but rather shifted that cost from the employer to the worker. That, in turn, has reduced the willingness of municipal unions to surrender hard-won benefits. The Commonwealth needs to bring to the table a proposal to revamp the GIC so that its commissioners have more power and responsibility and so that there will be a balance between the interests of management and those of the constituent unions. They will need more authority to adopt innovative cost-saving programs that would stop the waste that the Globe has done such a good job of reporting. The GIC needs to do more than save money by shifting cost. It needs to change how health care is delivered to the workers and their families so that quality care and savings are achieved at the same time. © Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
Turn Your Back?
Would you turn your back on unions?
Leo E. Mellyn, Stoughton, Boston Globe, February 2, 2010
I could not believe what I was reading in your January 29 editorial page (“To stabilize state finances, cut costs at local level’’). You are advocating passing laws to throw away years of collective bargaining agreements. Is this a democracy or a dictatorship? Is this what the Democratic Party has become - a group that should turn its back on unions? I have a serious condition that is potentially life-threatening. I am very happy with my present insurance, and I do not look kindly on people telling me they know better than I what insurance is better for me. If I had not read it myself, I would have said The Boston Globe would never say that. I will not cancel my subscription, but I am amazed and disappointed that your paper would take such a position. © Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
No One Size
No one-size-fits-all fix for cities, towns
John Coughlin, Vice president Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Boston, Boston Globe, February 2, 2010
The January 29 editorial “To stabilize state finances, cut costs at local level’’ implies that by joining the Group Insurance Commission, cities and towns can bring down the costs of employees’ health care without cutting benefits. This is inaccurate. There is a continued misperception that moving to the GIC is the ultimate answer. Many cities and towns, in partnership with unions, retirees, and employees, have carefully reviewed the GIC option and found that joining would not result in savings, and might actually increase their health care costs. Readers should know that with all health plans, including those offered through the GIC, there is a direct correlation between benefits and costs. Over the past three years, many cities and towns have lowered their health care costs by making changes in their benefits and by adopting disease management and wellness programs that help their employees live healthier lives. None of this requires a city or town to join the GIC. There is no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to cities and towns reducing health care costs while maintaining benefits. © Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company