OPEA Responds to Governor's Veto of Health Insurance Legislation

 

The Oklahoma Public Employees Association issued a press release Monday decrying Governor Brad Henry's veto of SB 2052.  The bill would have frozen the benefit allowance for state employees and indexed it at the HealthChoice rate over the next three years. Both the Oklahoma Public Employees Association and the Oklahoma Education Association had been in discussions with lawmakers about the provisions of this legislation for several months and modifications were made to benefit both state and education employees.

 

“For a Governor who wants to be known as the Education Governor, he certainly did not show it by vetoing this bill, which would help both teachers and state employees,” said OPEA Executive Director Sterling Zearley.

 

“We are clearly disappointed that once again special interest groups, like insurance companies were able to influence the Governor over his fellow state employees,” continued Zearley.

 

“In the veto message the Governor said, ‘For such a sweeping change to be enacted into law, it must be thoroughly researched and debated throughout the four-month session,’ well this idea and some of the proposals in it were not only debated during the four month session but throughout an interim session by legislators, the Insurance Commissioner and the parties affected by the legislation,” stated Zearley. “That is far more time than the Governor even suggested.”

 

“This is just another example of how the Governor has shown he does not care about the well being of state employees and their families,” said Zearley. “On the same day he vetoed SB 2052, he signed HB 2999, which gives the Department of Mental Health the ability to contract out state employees’ jobs at state-operated facilities.”

 

In a letter to legislators about HB 2999 Commissioner Terri White told legislators, “The bill does not mean you will lose services in your area, however, they may not be state run.”

 

“With the Governor and agency directors working to privatize state services and harming the income of state employees, it is becoming more difficult to recruit and retain quality employees,” Zearley said.

 

State employees have not received a pay raise in four years. With the veto of SB-2052, state employees will have less money in their pockets in 2011.

 

“We at OPEA believe Governor Henry has a strange way of showing that he cares about the working class of Oklahoma, when with his veto, he has possibly cost state employees between $35-$119 per month,” said Zearley. “Maybe the next governor will understand the importance of state employees and the services they provide.”

13 comments (Add your own)

1. George wrote:
None of them care, that should be obvious by now.

Mon, June 14, 2010 @ 4:20 PM

2. JoeBob wrote:
Can someone explain something to me. We now have 8 hmos to choose from in some areas. How can reducing that to one cause rates to go down? I read somewhere in the newspaper some legislator said if we get one hmo the rate would go down and the service area would increase. How does that happen? I think the governor did us a favor.

Tue, June 15, 2010 @ 8:20 AM

3. Jim wrote:
JoeBob,

Are you out of your frigging mind?
Your first error is reading the Daily Disappointment.
Two you sound like you may be a legislator trying to defend your actions…never the less this veto in no way helps teachers or state employees. The destruction of state services has now begun!

Tue, June 15, 2010 @ 8:46 AM

4. bobby wrote:
I understand that the veto effected the insurance allowance, but did it also axe the plan to have one HMO instead of the current offering? It appears to me that everything remains the same unless there is another bill that effects choice and allowance. Anyone know?

Tue, June 15, 2010 @ 9:26 AM

5. Ryan wrote:
I think OPEA was on the wrong side on this one. This bill would eleminate choice and eventually eat away our benefit allowance. Some of us would no longer get to keep our Doctor / specialists if they are not part of the new HMO or Healthchoice. What is worse is that new employees would not get their remaining benefit allowance in their check. It would have to go in tax exempt accounts. Selling out future OPEA members is not a good plan! Yes, it sucks that are benefit allowance may go down next year. However, this system has given most of us extra money for a long time so I won't get too mad that itgoes the other way this time. OPEA's press release was over the top. This bill was not as cut and dry for state employees as OPEA said.

Tue, June 15, 2010 @ 12:23 PM

6. Carl wrote:
Ryan, you must be rich. If I lose money, thats a good thing? This bill would have given ALL state employees choice not just you people in the metro area. And it would have saved our current dollars in the benefit allowance. You the one on the wrong side of this issue.

Tue, June 15, 2010 @ 4:04 PM

7. fed up wrote:
It has become very clear to me that all the powers that be, including leaders within our own agencies, are anxious to privatize services now provided by state employees. I guess someone has located a bunch of people that are wanting to work for nothing in order to save the great state of Oklahoma money. I'll be out of the picture soon and watching the evening news where I'm sure there will be lots of stories about how great the services are, now that there are no longer state employees. The best part will be seeing which of our current agency leaders will be at the helm of the privatized services, I,m also sure that some of them will be disappointed as they themselves are being used at this time to bring about their own end. It's going to get interesting.

Tue, June 15, 2010 @ 7:13 PM

8. Jim wrote:
fed up,

Amen!

Wed, June 16, 2010 @ 9:13 AM

9. MAC wrote:
Let me get this straight. SB 2052 would have kept the benefits allowance at the same level for 2011 as it is for 2010. Was there a provision to keep the premiums for 2011 at the 2010 levels? I see nothing that guarantees that. Benefits stay same, premiums go up. I lose money. Right? Is OPEA saying I will lose less money with SB 2052?

Wed, June 16, 2010 @ 10:18 AM

10. Mike wrote:
MAC: What OPEA is saying is that this deals with an unfunded mandate from the legislature, so if insurance goes up the portion that the state has to come up with will come from the agency's budget not the legislature so with the agency's budgets being cut still, that means more furloughs to make up for any money that will have to go towards a higher insurance increase!!! OPEA was trying to freeze it so it would not go higher and Agency directors would not have to lose more money out of their budget and in turn not go stright to furloughs to make up for the lost money.

Wed, June 16, 2010 @ 12:01 PM

11. MAC wrote:
Mike, so any increase in premiums will still mean a loss of money on my paycheck. I mean bottom line. That means I lose money but maybe will avoid a furlough. I still lose money either way. Seems like a lose/lose situation. Which is the bigger money loss for me? Higher premiums, or a furlough day? I would guess it depends on how much higher the premiums go?

Wed, June 16, 2010 @ 2:12 PM

12. Mike wrote:
You are correct, a lot depends on how much Health Choice raises their premiums and also the HMO's because the 75% is figured on the highest plans,,, but a lot also depends on your agency's budget and number of people working,, if the budget can cover the additional funds then you might be fine, but if your agency's budget can't then they have to come up with the funding somewhere!!!!!!! last word I heard was somewhere around 7% maybe but nothing for sure.....

Wed, June 16, 2010 @ 4:46 PM

13. Carl wrote:
I think you are both wrong. According to a friend as OSEEGIB the benefit allowance freeze would have kept employees from loosing money because AETNA is not bidding and therefore the BA would go down. OPEA did the right thing by freezing at the current level and saving employees money. If the bill would have been signed by the governor, you may even have seen a more competitive premium from the HMO winner which means employees would have saved more money. Think it through...

Thu, June 17, 2010 @ 7:58 AM

Add a New Comment

Enter the code you see below:
code
 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.