[Vision2020] ID Public Records Law: UI

[Paul Rumelhart]

Saundra Lund wrote:
> Hi Again Paul,
>
> You wrote:
> " I'm not quite sure why my ginormous and presumably unearned salary has
> become such a big issue.  I was letting you know that there are at least a
> few situations where people are happily saving money on this plan."
>
> A couple of points.
>
> I'll say *again* I'm truly glad Plan H is working well for you.  As a member
> of the UI community, I would certainly hope you would wish the same for the
> UI employees -- that they have affordable access to health insurance that
> works well for them -- who can afford nothing BUT Plan H that ISN'T working
> well for them.
>   

Look, you're a boxing glove in search of a punching bag.  I'm just 
giving you one perspective, not trying to tell you that you're full of 
shit.  I'll tell you something that will make you feel better - I do 
actually care about other people.

> And, I apologize if it sounded like I was picking on your salary -- that
> wasn't my intention.  I don't know what you make, and until your response, I
> didn't know you had no dependents, either. 

My apologies, Rose had just made what I perceived to be sneering remarks 
about my salary.  I was predisposed to be annoyed when I perceived the 
same thing again.  I shouldn't have jumped on you.

> When I first started looking into
> the whole health insurance debacle in this country, I learned that rural
> parts of the country face unique challenges with respect to both health
> *care* and health *insurance*.  Looking for an easy quick & dirty
> comparison, I thought I'd compare UI & BSU.  The results were shocking, and
> not in a good way.  I then thought maybe I'd best check out ISU so I
> wouldn't have a sample of one that could very well be skewed.  When the
> rates were identical, I checked out LCSC only to see that they have the same
> excellent choices and prices as the other two, and that's when I learned
> that the reason for the excellent choices and prices are because they are
> part of the state pool.
>
> Clearly, UI employees ***with families*** are at a HUGE financial
> disadvantage with respect to health insurance, and that became my refrain.
>   

That may be true - I haven't had the time to compare the plans 
side-by-side. 

> However, the more I asked questions and talked to UI employees, the more I
> heard that it's *not* just UI employees with families -- single employees
> are unhappy, too, particularly those towards the bottom of the
> university-wide compensation spread.  If you're above that level, congrats
> and I'm happy to assume you earn your salary just the same as the cleaning
> specialist who's earning $21,000 a year  :-)
>
> I don't know how old you are, but allow me to point out that living on Ramen
> noodles and pancakes is an entirely different thing when you are in your 20s
> than when you are in your 40s . . . or older.
>   

Yes, you're right.  I don't have direct personal experience with poverty 
in my 40s.

> It sounds like Plan H is a really good fit for you, but if you've kept up
> with the health care debate, you surely understand that HSAs really *aren't*
> appropriate for a great many people, yet that turned out to be the *only*
> affordable option for a lot of UI employees.  You may also know that the
> whole CDHC theory is hotly debated, and HSAs are perceived to be a
> cornerstone of CDHC.  I think for people who WANT to take the risk with what
> is modified catastrophic only coverage, that's their choice; however, I
> vehemently disagree with a large employer like UI pricing the vast majority
> of employees with families out of anything BUT a high deductible HSA plan.
> It's just completely immoral, IMHO.
>
> But, let's get back to my main point, please:  what on earth is going on
> that UI employees are at such a HUGE health insurance disadvantage compared
> to other state employees?!  If the 25,000+ state employees -- including
> those just 30 miles away at LCSC -- were all in the same boat, that would be
> one thing, but employees in the state pool are at a distinct advantage when
> it comes to health insurance.  In addition to the real-life difference this
> makes to UI employees, it's also harmful when it comes to recruiting faculty
> and staff, which isn't good for the UI community.
>
> You also wrote:
> "If you are putting money into the HSA, then you will have some in the
> account that can be used when trying to meet your higher deductible.  I
> understand that the first year is a crap shoot - you may need to pay $X when
> you have yet put that much into the account."
>
> But, Paul, that's a big IF in your first sentence.  Quite a few of the
> people I know who were financially forced into Plan H aren't able to benefit
> much -- if at all -- from the HSA because they just can't afford to
> contribute -- or contribute much -- to an HSA.  Rewind to my example of a
> single parent with two children with a gross pay of $40,000 and tell me how
> much you realistically think he or she could contribute to an HSA.  We know
> there are more than a few UI employees who qualify for food stamps, for
> Pete's sake -- it's not difficult to understand how those in that situation
> just can't contribute to an HSA, is it?
>
> And, even for those able to make minimal contributions to an HSA, they may
> never get ahead.  All it may take is your kid falling of his bike & breaking
> his arm, or your daughter getting hit by a softball & needing stitches, or a
> slip on the ice, or an asthma attack to wipe out the little saved . . . and
> a good chunk of you annual salary to boot.
>
> You also wrote:
> "What are the differences in coverage between Plan A and Plan H?  I'm not
> trying to claim that Plan H is better, I simply don't know."
>
> Ron sent you the link, so you can check that out, but I'll throw out a
> couple of examples for those who just want a quick glimpse.  The deductibles
> are dramatically different with Plan A being a heck of a lot better ($350
> individual / $1050 family aggregate), and Plan B being even better ($175
> individual / $525 family aggregate), and Plan H sucking ($1150 single /
> $2300 family).  Of course, the employee premium is higher for Plans A & B.
>
> But, there are other very real differences as well.  For those able to
> afford Plan A (or Plan B) premiums, they can see a doctor if they get sick
> for a very reasonable *pre-deductible* co-pay.  For those on Plan H, you pay
> EVERYTHING (except wellness/preventative care) *until* you meet the
> deductible.
>
> For those able to afford Plan A, should you or a family member need an
> ambulance, it will only cost you a $50 *pre-deductible* co-pay.  For those
> with Plan H, you'll pay the entire amount unless or until you've met the
> deductible, and then insurance will cover 70% of UCR costs.
>
> And, of course, the coverage levels are less for those with Plan H even once
> the deductible is met.  For someone with Plan A or (B), you have a $25 (or
> $15) co-pay if you have to go to the QuickCare; that same visit will cost
> someone with Plan H about $41 IF they have met the deductible.  Generally
> speaking, Plan A pays 80%, Plan B pays 90%, and Plan H pays 70%.
>
> OTOH, the family out-of-pocket maximums are lower for those on Plan H than
> for those on the UI's Plan A.
>
> Paul, both Rose & I have tried to get stats for many of the questions you're
> asking.  Previously, statistics were readily available; now, the UI acts
> like you are asking for top secret information when you ask.  Frankly, if
> the UI wants to act secretive and suspicious -- and to tell different
> stories to different audiences -- I'm going think there's a reason for the
> complete lack of transparency until proven otherwise.
>
> You also wrote:
> "It's my understanding that we haven't been on the State plan for years, if
> ever.  What would we have paid if we had stayed with Regence?"
>
> According to the Benefits person I spoke with, the UI has never been in the
> state pool.  My understanding is the question has arisen periodically -- I
> think someone has asked it at every Open Enrollment meeting I've attended --
> and the explanation has always been that it would be disadvantageous to UI
> employees because we are a healthier pool.
>
> Clearly, that explanation hasn't held any water for at least the last two
> years yet it continues to be the explanation offered.
>
> I don't know what the premiums would be had we stayed with Regence because
> the UI jumped ship for FY04, IIRC.
>
> However, I can tell you that the City of Moscow has Regence as their
> carrier, and they are looking at a 4.5% premium increase.  The City
> apparently covers the cost for employees as well as 50% of the cost for
> dependents, if I correctly understood Mr. Riedner's comments in the
> 9/28/2009 Administrative Committee meeting.  Because employees didn't get
> raises, the City is proposing to absorb the 4.5% increase so that employees
> don't see their wages eroded, and I say KUDOS to the idea.
>
> Of course, I don't know what City employees pay in premiums or details of
> the coverage, but I sure hope our hard-working City employees have better
> coverage than the two-thirds of hard-working UI employees stuck with the
> high deductible Plan H.
>
> Again, if all state employees were in the same rotten boat as UI employees,
> that would be one thing, but they aren't.  State employees have two
> infinitely more affordable health insurance options in addition to an
> affordable high deductible plan where  one could CHOOSE to individually open
> an HSA, if I correctly understand the regulations (no guarantee there!).
>
> If you -- or anyone else -- has read this far, thanks  :-)
>
>   
>

Saundra, you paint a dismal picture of the UI health care plan.  Are 
there any positives that can be seen anywhere?  Aside from the 
apparently small demographic I fall into?

Paul