U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > Long Island
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-06-2013, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,833 posts, read 29,091,856 times
Reputation: 7397

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by agw123 View Post
15-17% is what most district employees pay to their health care which is slightly below the 20% average that exists in the private sector. You really cant ask or expect them to pay more than what exists in the private sector.

I doubt your districts insurance is climbing $2 million EACH year. Double check your numbers. If it is, they need to get a new plan.


Doubt all you want. I know what I read and reread. FWIW there are those in the private sector paying 100%. If we dropped health insurance (or made teachers pay even 50%) there would still be a large pool of very capable teachers willing to work.

Is it better to make a small sacrifice and help keep your peers employed or say screw it -- I've got mine and see them cut? That's were the district is at: dropping programs to lay off teachers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-06-2013, 08:54 AM
 
1,098 posts, read 2,252,929 times
Reputation: 1014
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhBeeHave View Post
Doubt all you want. I know what I read and reread. FWIW there are those in the private sector paying 100%. If we dropped health insurance (or made teachers pay even 50%) there would still be a large pool of very capable teachers willing to work.

Is it better to make a small sacrifice and help keep your peers employed or say screw it -- I've got mine and see them cut? That's were the district is at: dropping programs to lay off teachers.
With health insurance costs spiraling upward, the national average for private employers is that workers probably pay 30% of health insurance premiums. In my school district, I believe the rank and file now pay about 10%. They could certainly afford to pay more.

With that said, you cannot make anyone pay 50% or 100% of their health insurance costs because average workers wouldn't have a living wage to take home. Average family coverage in 2012 was about $16,000 for a family health policy. You can't plop those costs on top of a $40K-$50K salary. They wouldn't have to worry about healthcare because they would die of malnutrition. Kaiser has done surveys which show that lower-wage people already pay more for their health premiums, including higher deductibles.

We need a single-payer government system that frees business, school districts and others from the healthcare burden. And we need caps on charges for medical procedures and equipment. To achieve both those things, we need to stop the bribes that insurers and health providers pay to members of Congress.

It's really that simple. Ask your older friends who have just gone on Medicare whether they would prefer to return to their last version of private health insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 09:23 AM
 
2,240 posts, read 4,288,154 times
Reputation: 1094
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhBeeHave View Post
Doubt all you want. I know what I read and reread. FWIW there are those in the private sector paying 100%. If we dropped health insurance (or made teachers pay even 50%) there would still be a large pool of very capable teachers willing to work.

Is it better to make a small sacrifice and help keep your peers employed or say screw it -- I've got mine and see them cut? That's were the district is at: dropping programs to lay off teachers.
I'm sure there are private sector people paying 100%. I was trying to reference private sector where the # of employees was the same. You cant compare the mom and pop place with Forbes Top 20.

What district is having healthcare increase of $2 million a year? My district costs went down after a renegotiation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,833 posts, read 29,091,856 times
Reputation: 7397
Quote:
Originally Posted by longislander2 View Post
With health insurance costs spiraling upward, the national average for private employers is that workers probably pay 30% of health insurance premiums. In my school district, I believe the rank and file now pay about 10%. They could certainly afford to pay more.

With that said, you cannot make anyone pay 50% or 100% of their health insurance costs because average workers wouldn't have a living wage to take home. Average family coverage in 2012 was about $16,000 for a family health policy. You can't plop those costs on top of a $40K-$50K salary. They wouldn't have to worry about healthcare because they would die of malnutrition. Kaiser has done surveys which show that lower-wage people already pay more for their health premiums, including higher deductibles.

We need a single-payer government system that frees business, school districts and others from the healthcare burden. And we need caps on charges for medical procedures and equipment. To achieve both those things, we need to stop the bribes that insurers and health providers pay to members of Congress.

It's really that simple. Ask your older friends who have just gone on Medicare whether they would prefer to return to their last version of private health insurance.
Let's stay on topic -- school expenses.

The average teacher (just speaking for my district) is earning over $95K. Asking for an additional $2,400 per year (about 2.5% of their salary they will still be receiving both raises and step increases) is not unreasonable and represents a savings to the district which will prevent fewer dismissals and classes being cut.

If (hypothetical) we eliminated health care, the district would have saved close to $20 million this year, would have saved $17.5 million last year, and would save $22 million next year. But we aren't that mean-spirited. The amount of teacher contribution should be a base amount plus the percentage of the increase. In the case of my district, 15% base plus 10% rise over previous year. If the insurance premium doesn't increase, they pay the set 15%. Perhaps that might inspire the union reps to work more closely with their employers, the taxpayers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 09:55 AM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,833 posts, read 29,091,856 times
Reputation: 7397
Quote:
Originally Posted by agw123 View Post
I'm sure there are private sector people paying 100%. I was trying to reference private sector where the # of employees was the same. You cant compare the mom and pop place with Forbes Top 20.

What district is having healthcare increase of $2 million a year? My district costs went down after a renegotiation.
Fair enough, but if private sector businesses were managed like our schools, I don't believe the business would be flourishing.

Three Village has increased each year between $1.9 to $2.5 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 10:12 AM
 
2,240 posts, read 4,288,154 times
Reputation: 1094
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhBeeHave View Post
Fair enough, but if private sector businesses were managed like our schools, I don't believe the business would be flourishing.

Three Village has increased each year between $1.9 to $2.5 million.
They are budgeting for these increases, but if you look at 2011-2012 it actually was $1million less then they budgeted for. I'd be curious to see if 2012-2013 falls in at the budgeted # or comes in less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 10:35 AM
 
3,573 posts, read 3,801,422 times
Reputation: 3321
Insurance in general isn't rocket science.

Contribute X to premiums, they are managed in securities as an investment (let's call this) Z, withdraw Y for services. If Y > X + Z, someone else ultimately is footing the bill.

Right now in the USA, Y is out of control.

Pensions work the same way.
Social Security works the same way.

There has never been a situation where X = Y + Z.
Politicians in the past have always known the future would be shortchanged. They however would be out of office, or dead.
The time has come to make payment on these poor decisions- the cost will be to the taxpayer, and the children currently receiving school services.


My solution is the same as theirs-
Have new public service employees pay 25% towards healthcare, and 25% towards retirement.
All can retire at 65 with a million dollar a year pension.

Their contributions will solve todays problem, and 40 years from now someone else can deal with how to pay them their millions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Massapequa Park
3,173 posts, read 5,854,765 times
Reputation: 1357
Quote:
Originally Posted by agw123 View Post
15-17% is what most district employees pay to their health care which is slightly below the 20% average that exists in the private sector. You really cant ask or expect them to pay more than what exists in the private sector.

I doubt your districts insurance is climbing $2 million EACH year. Double check your numbers. If it is, they need to get a new plan.
Healthcare costs are skyrocketing. I don't doubt OBH's findings.


Also, I think your 15-17% figure is higher than what they really pay.
Capitol Confidential Teachers pay lower health care rates than state workers
===
"If premium sharing for school district employees were changed to match State employee requirements (10 percent for singles and 25 percent for families), estimated savings of $500 to $600 million would be realized annually. This figure includes $214 million in estimated savings for New York City and $221 million to $246 million for districts in the rest of the state, with the potential for more if premium sharing requirements for retirees are also changed.

The analysis shows further that school district premium sharing arrangements with teachers vary widely. For single coverage for the newly-hired, thirty percent of districts are sharing less than 10 percent of the premium costs with teachers, 25 percent are sharing 10 percent, and 36 percent are charging more than 10 percent."
===
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 10:56 AM
 
2,240 posts, read 4,288,154 times
Reputation: 1094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman View Post
Healthcare costs are skyrocketing. I don't doubt OBH's findings.


Also, I think your 15-17% figure is higher than what they really pay.
Capitol Confidential Teachers pay lower health care rates than state workers
===
"If premium sharing for school district employees were changed to match State employee requirements (10 percent for singles and 25 percent for families), estimated savings of $500 to $600 million would be realized annually. This figure includes $214 million in estimated savings for New York City and $221 million to $246 million for districts in the rest of the state, with the potential for more if premium sharing requirements for retirees are also changed.

The analysis shows further that school district premium sharing arrangements with teachers vary widely. For single coverage for the newly-hired, thirty percent of districts are sharing less than 10 percent of the premium costs with teachers, 25 percent are sharing 10 percent, and 36 percent are charging more than 10 percent."
===
I can speak for where I live (sachem) where healthcare costs are going down this year (renegotiation) and the employees are paying 17%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 11:15 AM
 
2,630 posts, read 4,223,624 times
Reputation: 1764
I help develop the budget(s). The year over year rise is based on 4 distinct things:
1. contractually mandated pension contributions.
2. contractually mandated salary increases.
3. contractually mandated benefits increases (i.e health and insurance premium increases).
4. Fed and State education mandates like No Child Left Behind, technology, etc and Special Ed IEP requirements (although many of these are funded by fed govt grants).

Bottom line is teachers are excessively overcompensated on LI with compensation increasing even in down economies.

Zero, not one penny to improve or expand programs for kids (except those mandated by the state or feds). Zero, zip, nada. And every year student programs are held at knifepoint to help get the budgets passed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > Long Island
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top