| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Linda M
Member
43 Posts |
 Posted - 10/13/2011 : 08:41:59 AM
|
After listening last night to the Ward 3 Alderman say that only 10 of the 28 members take health insurance through the city, I got this from the City of Everett Human Resources Director. Info was added to show 2-year cost to city. The proposed charter will prohibit the city council and school committee from participating in the city’s health insurance program.
ALDERMAN AND COUNCIL
2010-2011
HEALTH INSURANCE
MONTHLY CITY CONTRIBUTION
4 of 7 Alderman 9 of 18 Council total 25 0 of 9 School Committe
BC/BS MASTER MEDICAL
Eloy Sierra Family 2011.89 48,285.36 for a 2year term
Michael Marchese Individual 867.36 20,816.64 for a 2year term
Anthony Ranieri Individual 867.36 20,816.64 for a 2year term
BC/BS Blue Care Elect
Joseph McGonagle Family 1588.38 38,121.12 for a 2year term
Rosa Diflorio Family 1588.38 38,121.12 for a 2year term
Cynthia Sarnie Family 1588.38 38,121.12 for a 2year term
Mille Cardello Family 1588.38 38,121.12 for a 2year term
Sal Sachetta Individual 716.95 17,206.80 for a 2year term
Harvard Pilgrim
Peter Napolitano Family 1,435.67 34,456.08 for a 2year term
Lorriane Bruno Individual 530.10 12,722.88 for a 2year term
Rosemary Miller Individual 530.10 12,722.88 for a 2year term
Serigo Cornelio Individual 530.10 12,722.88 for a 2year term
David Rodrigues Individual 530.10 12,722.88 for a 2year term
$344,957.52 for a 2-year term
|
|
|
cozulady
Senior Member
165 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2011 : 09:20:47 AM
|
| I personally don't object to insurance being offered, but when they have a choice from a full time position and choose to take from the city because it is a little less, it hurts those that don't have a place to get it from. Also, some of those councillors work hard, not just on Monday Night TV for their constituents. Some just put things on the agenda to handle items of ask other councillors to add their name to make it look like they worked on the item also. I also don't feel that the councillors health insurance benefits are the driving force behind the tax increases over the past 3 years. There is a lot of spending going on that is unnecessary. Things need to change in the corner office regardless of who wins on Nov. 8. |
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2011 : 09:33:09 AM
|
I couldn't agree with you more Cozulady. The cost of the City Council health insurance is just a drop in the bucket of the overspending from this administration.
Inflated salaries and a hiring freeze that never happened have added more to the budget. |
|
|
|
sweetdeal2007
Member
29 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2011 : 11:00:36 AM
|
This is what I don't understand, you work full time you get to pick your insurance, you run for elected position you forget your work insurance and take the city's. Why have they not put this is a committee or get an outside opinion on this? Let's face it, the legal team is not that bright that we have.
And why should our elected officials get to choose? Why not let all take Harvard, it seems to be the cheaper plan than the BC/BS. But, it's like beating a dead horse. |
|
|
|
snoopy1
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2011 : 11:34:51 AM
|
The health insurance for elected officials is a miniscule issue and the commission wants to take your attention away from everything else they are proposing. This will not even put a dent in the budget and with overcrowding a main concern in this city, are we are just going to do away with our representaion? We are cutting our own representation??? CUT the corner office and high salaries, NOT people that benefit and work for us! We have 40,000 people living in this city and the 11 will be overwhelmed and nothing will get done except for the mayor's pet projects when he stacks that board, and he will.
That's all we hear about from the commission is "health insurance health insurance" in the charter. For the elected officials that have health insurance offered to them at their jobs, they should not be eligible. I'd like to see that get passed as an ordinance.
Voting for charter will be the biggest mistake weve ever done and in 4 years time, people will sorry. It will be the end of true representation. |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2011 : 11:44:16 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by massdee
I couldn't agree with you more Cozulady. The cost of the City Council health insurance is just a drop in the bucket of the overspending from this administration.
Inflated salaries and a hiring freeze that never happened have added more to the budget.
I wouldn't call it a drop in the bucket.....it's over $300k.
Members of this board have often pointed out that the budget has grown drastically over the past 3 years. Typical of this board, most members place the blame on inflated salaries and new hires. I assume this is because the real budget escalators (fixed costs,energy expenses and unfunded mandates)get in the way of your argument.
For the sake of argument, can someone find me another 300k drop in the bucket that is made up of salary inflation and new hires? |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2011 : 1:53:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by massdee
I couldn't agree with you more Cozulady. The cost of the City Council health insurance is just a drop in the bucket of the overspending from this administration.
Inflated salaries and a hiring freeze that never happened have added more to the budget.
There certainly are a few hires lately too.
I'd like to know how much is it going to cost to fund part time workers who will be laid off after the election? Also how much in unemployment benefits? We all know under Obama unemployment just keeps getting extended. It's not worth it right now. |
|
|
|
Fran
Senior Member
250 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2011 : 3:30:33 PM
|
| Over and above the $150K per year we are paying the current Councilors and Alderman, what is it costing for retired elected officials who are getting health benefits through the city? I don't know the number but I'm sure it will make it a bigger drop in the bucket. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2011 : 8:25:48 PM
|
| Sorry but it's roughly $150K per year. I think if I had a budget book for this year and last year I could compare and find $150K in pay increases and new hires, or close to it. How much is the total budget? When you are talking about over a 100 million a year, $150K is a drop in the bucket. |
|
|
|
Cam
Member
82 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2011 : 8:48:23 PM
|
| Does anyone really think 150,000 is going to make a difference in a 140 million budget. get real folks. |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2011 : 05:35:10 AM
|
| In a way its a drop in the bucket but if you shift the 150k somewhere else in the budget it becomes two more teachers, two more cops or two more fireman. Or maybe you just dont spend it at all. I'm just saying if youre going to spend $150k then spend every drop wisely at least. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2011 : 07:01:32 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Middle-Man 1
In a way its a drop in the bucket but if you shift the 150k somewhere else in the budget it becomes two more teachers, two more cops or two more fireman. Or maybe you just dont spend it at all. I'm just saying if youre going to spend $150k then spend every drop wisely at least.
Sure, that's if you had an administration that fiscally responsible, but we don't. They will waste that money so fast. We see how taxpayer dollars get spent and that would never happen. I can never support a 4 year term. If the 4 year term for mayor was a separate ballot question I would consider it. It's such a shame what the charter commission has done. |
|
|
|
scamore
Senior Member
105 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2012 : 5:21:45 PM
|
The honey dew mayor screw all the retiree's today with a letter that went out saying we have to change our insurance, cops fireman, city employees. After stating in one of his meeting that retiree's had 3 years before it would effect them
LIAR LIAR PANTS CAUGHT DOWN AGAIN |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2012 : 05:48:53 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by scamore
The honey dew mayor screw all the retiree's today with a letter that went out saying we have to change our insurance, cops fireman, city employees. After stating in one of his meeting that retiree's had 3 years before it would effect them
LIAR LIAR PANTS CAUGHT DOWN AGAIN
You're getting a bit carried away here, aren't you???
I have a friend who is a city retiree & they said changes didn't look too bad. Co-pays will increase (they've been paying $5!!) & Blue Cross is being dropped.
I'm sure those people who have Blue Cross are upset but Blue Cross has apparently priced themselves out of the game. (My employer dropped them back in 2010 & my son's employer dropped them last year.) It isn't an ideal situation for the retirees (especially the older ones) but no matter when it's done, there will be unhappy people & the older they are, the harder it's going to be.
Health care costs are out of control & Everett employees have not been paying anywhere near what we in the private sector do. It's time they start paying more realistic co-pays & join the rest of us who aren't able to dictate to our employers!
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2012 : 10:29:09 AM
|
I'm hearing the same thing as justme about the changes. I haven't heard exactly what the new co-payments and deductibles will be though; so it's hard to evaluate how fair the changes are. But who else has a $5 co-pay these days? But as far as breaking any promises, the municipal healthcare reform law only offered very limited protections to retirees; I doubt that the Mayor would have offered more than what was required by law, outside of a negotiating environment at least. Here's what the actual law says (from MGL, Chapter 32B, Section 22(e)):
"The first time a public authority implements plan design changes under this section or section 23, the public authority shall not increase before July 1, 2014, the percentage contributed by retirees, surviving spouses and their dependents to their health insurance premiums from the percentage that was approved by the public authority prior to and in effect on July 1, 2011; provided however, that if a public authority approved of an increase in said percentage contributed by retirees before July 1, 2011, but to take effect on a date after July 1, 2011, said percentage increase may take effect upon the approval of the secretary of administration and finance based on documented evidence satisfactory to the secretary that the public authority approved the increase prior to July 1, 2011."
Contribution percentages weren't even on the table for these negotiations as far as I understand. So, from the little I admittedly know about the actual agreement, it appears to be in line with the laws. |
|
|
|
kittycat
Member
66 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2012 : 11:20:44 AM
|
Why is it that no one is getting the fact that Melissa specifically said "retirees will NOT be affected at all, and that they are grandfathered in" and now they are being affected. Dont mind the copay increase but its the lies that get to me. How can they NOT be affected they are having their health insurance provider taken away. Not all doctors take what's available through the city now and alot of retirees are running the risk of losing their doctors. Retirees take that very seriously and earned it.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Who we pay Health Insurance for
