Ann Arbor area lawmakers laud House passage of legislation ending their own retiree health care benefits
Ann Arbor area state representatives — Republicans and Democrats alike — joined today in voting in in favor of reducing retiree health care benefits for Michigan lawmakers.
House Bill 4087, which passed 107-3 in the House, ends longtime health care perks that lawmakers currently receive after serving only 6 years in the Legislature.
For decades, Michigan lawmakers have enjoyed health insurance funded by taxpayers that starts at age 55, said state Rep. Mark Ouimet, R-Scio Township.
Mark Ouimet
Joining Ouimet in voting for the legislation were three other local lawmakers: Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor; David Rutledge, D-Superior Township; and Rick Olson, R-York Township.
"It's a positive change," Irwin said. "This has been a political whipping boy for both parties for many, many years, and hopefully today we've whipped it for the last time."
Ouimet noted Michigan lawmakers took a 10 percent pay cut that started in January and saw budget reductions for their individual Lansing offices.
House Bill 4087 now heads to the Senate for consideration. It would amend the Michigan Legislative Retirement System Act to eliminate retiree health insurance for legislators and their dependents, starting with legislators whose first term of service began after Jan. 1, 2007.
As currently worded, lawmakers who have six years of legislative experience would remain vested into the retiree health care plan. That applies to about 2 representatives who are currently in the House and 7-8 Senators, according to sources in Lansing.
All future lawmakers and most of the current members would no longer qualify for retiree health care, no matter how many years of service.
According to a House Fiscal Agency analysis, the bill would have no significant, immediate fiscal impact, but it would create "future indeterminate savings."
In fiscal year 2009-10, the system spent $5.3 million to provide health insurance benefits to 348 retired members and their dependents, according to the House Fiscal Agency analysis.
Currently, the Michigan Legislative Retirement System pays 90 percent of the cost of health insurance for retired legislators and their dependents under certain conditions.
"The bill would produce long-term savings by incrementally reducing and eventually eliminating the costs of retiree health care benefits for members of the Legislature as the number of former members remaining in closed system decreases over time," the analysis reads.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
The Watchman
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 11:21 a.m.
"Receiving retiree health care after only serving 6 years on the job is unheard of in the private sector, and it's time to end this lavish perk for our state elected officials," Ouimet said in a statement. "We've required other state employees to make sacrifices due to our budget situation, and it's only fair that state lawmakers continue to share in that sacrifice." Unless you work for the City of Ann Arbor. What happens is that upper management works for the City for 5 years and reaches the age of 60 and receives full health care coverage by the City as a retiree. How do you think Roger Fraser did it after 9 years on the job. When the City hires administrators and department heads who are at the end of their careers they can hire on in Ann Arbor. Work there a minimum of 5 years and retire with the same health care benefits as a long time 25 year employee. The unions have suggested that this be changed and a graduated scale be introduced to appoint a percentage of health care depending on years of service. The unions have been rebuffed at this suggestion. Why would someone who is in a position to receive lifetime health care after 5 years of work be interested in changing this.
Michigan Man
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 10:21 p.m.
Ouimet, once again, showing leadership and on the right side of the issues.
treetowncartel
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.
Now it is time to do the same for the judiciary.
treetowncartel
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 7:13 p.m.
Thanks Cash, I forgot about that one. I would say that there could be an established set of years in either category that would allow for some benefits. Maybe, 20 or 25 years. Certainly if a judge is elected time and time again they should be rewarded for the long service to the community. Kind of like a teacher should be too.
Cash
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 4:40 p.m.
And executive.
skigrl50
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 2:52 p.m.
And do they currently have to pay at least 20% of their current health care benefits?? Let's see if this actually passes the senate now...
My2bits
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.
This was a side effect of term limits, which was a bad idea. What we need to do is remove term limits and go from a full time legislature to a part time one. We will save money, keep the power and institutional knowledge in voter elected representatives, rather than the insiders and lobbyists, and not likely reduce the effectiveness of our currently ineffective legislature.
Cash
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 9:50 a.m.
Ryan, Could you please report which ones of the above mentioned folks, already HAS taxpayer paid health care and pension from their County Commissioner term? They has a HUGE impact on this story....the proverbial elephant in the room.
John Q
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 4:08 a.m.
Don't go getting all excited about this. The state legislature has played this game before with one body passing the change and passing the bill over the other where it dies in some committee. Don't be surprised when it happens again.
snoopdog
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 2:40 a.m.
Good call to all of these gents, bout time ! Good Day
Lac Court Orilles
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 1:32 a.m.
If I were a rich Republican politician with millions already in the bank, it would be easy for me to vote against retirement health care too. Somehow these Republicans think middle class retirees are too stupid to see this is another strategy to set up another round of cuts to public service worker's retirement health benefits. Sham on them again!
grye
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 2:28 a.m.
Enough of the negative ways Moriarity. This is a good thing. Don't need to leave something in the punch bowl while the party is hopping.
Cash
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 12:26 a.m.
From October, 2010 <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/washtenaw-county-board-shoots-down-kristin-judges-proposal-to-cut-commissioner-perks/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/washtenaw-county-board-shoots-down-kristin-judges-proposal-to-cut-commissioner-perks/</a> "A proposal by Washtenaw County Commissioner Kristin Judge to eliminate commissioner pensions and health benefits was quickly defeated Wednesday night. Judge made a motion during the county board's Ways and Means Committee meeting, asking fellow commissioners to join her in making cuts to commissioner perks — reductions she said would save the county tens of thousands of dollars. Kristin Judge, D-Pittsfield Township, watched her proposal to cut commissioner perks go down in defeat Wednesday night." _______ Aren't some of these folks ex-County Commissioners??? So aren't some of the people mentioned above already receiving benefits and pensions from our tax dollars?
grye
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 2:29 a.m.
Probably are. Hard to take back from those that make the rules.
Cash
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 12:10 a.m.
Do previous Washtenaw County commissioners receive health care benefits after 55?
Will
Thu, Jun 23, 2011 : 11:52 p.m.
Excellent passage by the state house. The state senate needs to pass this without delay.