Chair Talk
February 2005
If you read the newspapers or watched the news, one of the main issues that affect retirees is the subject of health care. Almost on a daily basis you can read where pension plans and health care for retirees are being seriously reduced/eliminated by both public and private employers. Health care costs are soaring daily. I think that it is time that we, as an organization, be more pro-active in decisions made by the State regarding health care. We need to realize that the State is currently operating from a position of deficit budgets and will continue to do so for some time. Unless we have more input into cost saving decisions regarding our health care — we will always be reactive and not a part of the decision-making process. I believe that we need to propose some money saving ideas regarding health care as soon as we possibly can.
I would imagine that some SERA members would rather we not put forth any cost saving proposals. They would say: “Why give the State ideas to save money?” If you read our by-laws and policies, our goals as an organization are to protect retiree pensions and benefits. I don’t think we can protect anything if we don’t do whatever may be necessary to continue health care coverage for retirees. I think that protecting our benefits includes providing cost saving ideas to the State. The only reason the State instituted the increase of prescription co-pays to $30 was to save money. I am sure that we have enough knowledgeable people to come up with some money saving ideas. It’s my belief that if we were to work with the State in money saving ideas — when times are better they may be more inclined to increase pensions of our older retirees.
I intend to put forth some ideas at the CC meeting February 4th as to how we should proceed if the Council is in favor of promoting cost saving proposals. One change in health care coverage that would save the State money and not hurt us to a great extend is that of Retiree’s share of health care costs. For example: I am a Retiree on Medicare (primary) and Blue Cross (secondary). My share of State health care costs (monthly) is $0. My wife is not on Medicare but is on my Blue Cross policy. There is a $0 charge for her monthly share of health care, yet a retiree of the same age pays $26.61 monthly. Would it make more sense that, if you were not on Medicare, you should be required to pay the percentage of costs that other retirees the same age/circumstance pays? This change would be easy to make and probably not affect our older retirees at all, yet would provide some cost savings to the State. There are many other cost saving ideas out there that we need to explore — some may increase out-of-pocket costs to some degree but may be beneficial to continuing health care coverage for retirees.
Editor’s note: Bob Kopasz is Chair of the Michigan SERA Council. He may be reached at P.O. Box 692, Mt. Morris, MI 48458; phone 810/240-8380
Return to top of page