Lilly's Deal and Lyda's Shocking News for City Employees

The El Paso Times had an interesting news article in the paper today.  It's titled "Ann Morgan Lilly gets conditional runoff endorsements, changes stance on partner benefits."  You can read the whole thing HERE.  I've got several thoughts on the article itself and some more thoughts on the ramifications of what they are reporting.  We'll start with the article itself.

I take issue with the title for a couple of reasons.

1. They mention the Noe vs. Mayela race at the end of the article.  I guess they more than "mention" the other race, they spend that last a few paragraphs talking about them.  I'm not sure what a better title would be, but I would have at least warned readers that they were going to get info on people who are not named "Ann Morgan Lilly."

2.  Lilly didn't really "change stance on partner benefits" by signing this pledge for Peinado and Hinojoso, did she?  She changed her stance on gay benefits when - and I'll quote the reporter's words directly to prove me right and them wrong:

"Lilly voted not to reverse the results of a ballot initiative that called for 'traditional family values,' in essence denying health benefits for unmarried partners of city employees after first voting to vacate the ballot results."

The article states that Lilly made that vote in November of last year.  So, she didn't "change" her stance on the issue when she signed the pledge yesterday, she changed it months ago.  The "flip flop" was news way back in November. Her stance now is consistent with the last vote she cast on the matter.

I do think the fact that Lilly did sign the pledge in order to get the support of two of her former opponents is news worthy.  I also think that Ness-Garcia-Ourladyguadalupe-Hernandez-the third's stance on the issue is news worthy because it's bigger than a flip flop - it's a contradiction of her actions and words.  She's a part of the lawsuit to keep gay benefits and ignore the voter's will, but says she's against the very key item that makes any of this the voter's business - taxpayers paying for dependent coverage!

More on that in a minute.

The big news for Lilly is that if she even picks up 50 votes from the two former opponents, it would be an enormous hill for Ness to climb.  Remember, Ness needs to take votes from Lilly and increase her turnout.  We know that Lilly voters won't cross over to Ness - they've voted for Lilly three times and will do it again in the runoff.  If Lilly adds new voters to her number... well it's curtains for Ness. 

And what's the big deal about signing a pledge that is basically innocuous in areas that matter and useless in areas that don't.  I agree with Ness and Noe who both know that the city council will never ever get another vote on gay benefits. The question is in the courts and whatever they say goes.  Well, unless you change how the city does benefits and who pays for what and how much.  More on this in a minute.

Calling Lilly a "flip flopper" might seem like a negative in most cases. However, in this case she has reiterated her stance on the subject and her stance is in line with the majority of the voters. When you're in a runoff and every vote counts - you want to be the candidate who supports popular ideals.  Many people out there are going to be inspired to go vote for Lilly after reading about her nonsupport for gay benefits.  Brilliant!  If you're going to "flip flop," always flop towards popular public opinion.

-------------------------

Now we can do this Ness thing I've been teasing you with. 

Lyda Ness and I agree on something - I support the employees providing coverage for anybody they want - AT THEIR COST.  Gay, straight, stranger, sister, brother, turtle or somebody's sick mother - I don't care who you cover as long as you are paying for it.  God bless Ness - she got one right! 

But... (you knew a "but" was coming and you know it can't be good)

For those of you who do not know how the city's health insurance program works, let me educate you.

The city picks up the cost of the employee and 70% of their dependent coverage.  And when I write "the city picks up" I mean - the taxpayers pay for it. 

Most of us don't have the luxury of having our employer pick up 70% of our dependent coverage.  In fact, most employers pick up about zero percent of dependent coverage and about 70 to 80 percent of the employee's direct coverage.  Bottom line - city employees have a great health insurance plan. It's way better than anything you'll find in the private sector save for a few employers that don't want to be employers for very long.

The crux of the gay hater's argument against gay benefits is that they don't want their tax dollars going to pay for benefits for gay couples.  Remember the taxpayer picks up 70% of the dependent coverage, which means they have a say in how, and on what, that money is spent. At least taxpayers would like to think they do!

Ness fixes the mess by simply taking the taxpayer funding out of the equation.  If the city employee wants to insure a dependent, it comes out of their own pocket.  They can insure whoever the want when they are footing the bill.  Obviously I mean that they can insure whoever they want within reason. There are some legal arguments that could open up what "dependent" truly means if you are going to let gays have coverage even though they aren't recognized by the government.  That's another argument for another day.  I will say that if you are a polygamist, you should get a lawyer - there's some money to be made on this deal.

Anywho...

If you're a city employee and you hear what Ness is saying, you can't be too happy.  A "family coverage" plan where most people work runs about $700 a month. I would suppose that the city's plan is in that neighborhood.  The city employee pays roughly $290 a month to cover the whole gang - not bad!   If Ness had it her way, the city employee would be out the entire $700 because she wants to do away with the city picking up any dependent care. 

Read this slowly city employees - Lyda Ness and David Karlsruher agree on one thing - we think you should pay the entire cost of your dependent care and that could be more than 250% of what you are paying now.  If they take $290 out of your check each month to cover your wife and kids, we would like to see that number go up to $700. 

If Ness got her way, her lawsuit would be null and void.  After all, she's taking taxpayer benefits completely off the table.  We can't vote to tell city employees what they can do with their own money, now can we?  Nope. 

All of this brings me to the big contradiction that is Ness' stance on gay benefits - she says she supports gay benefits, but then says she wants to take away the benefit entirely!  Which is it?  And why are we paying all this money for this stupid lawsuit if she doesn't really believe in paying for gay benefits?

Listen up city employees and I'll give you a little hint and a little assignment.  If Ness is elected there are enough votes on council to eliminate your dependent coverage. If Lilly wins, you keep your great benefit.  If I were you I'd be out there telling every person I know in District 1 to go vote for the person who is going to preserve your perks.  If you don't - I win and Ness wins, and you don't want that.  

Right now there are a lot of city employees who are thinking "we might lose our great benefits because 35 people wanted special treatment?  A total of 6,000 people get screwed for the comfort of 35?  Bullshit!"

Welcome to the way Lyda Ness solves problems. 

The reason you're hearing this from me is because the two reporters who wrote this article don't know anything about how benefits at the city work.  People are still arguing about this as if it's not simply an issue of taxpayer dollars and how taxpayers control those dollars. 

So would you rather have Lilly's flip flop, or Ness harsh hand of reality swiping away your benefits?  Elect Ness and they'll have the votes to end dependent coverage!

Comments

[Lisa Turner]

The city picks up 85% of the insurance cost for police and fire. For the other city employees the city pays around 75% of the employees health insurance. A family of 5 being employee with spouse and 3 kids or more pay the same as an employee with spouse and 1 kid.

[business owner]

it should always have been that the employee picks up the dependent coverage. the numbers aren't quite what you say though. family with kids pays about 400 a month(200 taken out bi weekly). the employee himself is about 200 and the city picks up that while the city picks up another 200 for the dependents. its really more like half even though they say 75 percent. im comparing this to private where its 200 for employee and 600 per month for spouse and kids. its really comes down to how you compare. i think the city uses the old 100 dollar per month employee figure to get there 75 percent.
the city is self insured. the employee rate was around 100 10 years ago, but not today in the real world of private insurance.

[business owner]

sorry, my math is wrong. maybe the city is using more for the employee.

[Old Fart]

Agree, that was a confusing TIMES article.

[Interesting Info]

No matter what - recent health insurance renewals whether you are the City of El Paso with thousands on the health insurance or a small business owner premium increases have been in the 40-60% increase over expiring coverage. 70% of the premium for dependents and spouses is paid by the City (taxpayers). Want that deal personally through your non-government employer - not happening. Small Biz employers are electing to only pay 50% of employee only cover and always 0% of dependent and spouse. So we taxpayers are footing the bill for a very generous coverage for city workers. I say city workers get salary and benefits based on what private sector is doing not what government thinks its owed.

[Lisa Turner]

Talk to their HR people they will give you exact numbers. I will look around for what they gave me for the exact numbers

[Lisa Turner]

health insurance plan [basic plan] for non uniformed employee
a pay period is 2 weeks

employee only.

Basic Plan
employee pays $42.11 per pay period.
The City pays the the remaining 72% of the premium

Buyup plan
$56.97 per pay period.
he City pays the the remaining 66% of the premium

EMPLOYEE +1

Basic Plan
employee pays $96.12 per pay period.
The City pays the the remaining 68% of the premium

Buyup plan
$125.87 per pay period.
the City pays the the remaining 62% of the premium

employee + 2

Basic Plan
employee pays $150.15 per pay period.
The City pays the the remaining 67% of the premium

Buyup plan
$194.76 per pay period.
the City pays the the remaining 61% of the premium

Employee +3, +4, +5,...+100 is no different then the cost of employee +2 plan.

All this info except what the city pays is online.

[interesting]

thats correct lisa. employee+2 pays 194.76 on the better plan or basically 400 dollars a month. if the city picks 610 dollars or 61 percent that means they value the policy at 1010 per month for a family for the better policy. they value the employee only at 250 dollars per month on the better plan. with their large pool that sounds high to me. that leaves all dependent coverage at 760 dollars. that means employees would have to pay an additional 360 per month(180 per pay period) if the city only paid the employee portion.
thats the way it should be but i think the city is high on what they value the insurance. maybe they need to switch to private especially with there large pool. 1010 sounds high. i was just quoted blue cross blue shield for around 850 a month on a 20 employee business(small pool). of course im not sure if the deductible and co-pays are the same. lisa, do you have the deductible and co-pay info on the better plan ?

[Lisa Turner]

It's on their website

[Gerardo R.]

The COBRA cost at UTEP is $1214, so the actual cost for insuring a family is around $1980. UTEP shells out about 50%. BTW, UTEP uses a group plan from BC/BS.

So $1010 sound like about right. There may be cheaper premium in private, BUT that just means higher deductible, co-insurance, etc.

[interesting]

sounds to high to me. private insurance with the same deductibles from blue cross was quoted to my small business(20 emp) and its cheaper. with that large of a pool(more people) it should be cheaper at the city.