GIC is still right call

GIC is still right call

There are 20 comments on the Berkshire Eagle story from Mar 1, 2010, titled GIC is still right call. In it, Berkshire Eagle reports that:

There are no indications that the state's Group Insurance Commission is going to reverse its decision to impose higher health insurance co-payments and deductibles on its subscribers to make up a projected $35 million shortfall.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Berkshire Eagle.

liberalbonehead

Waltham, MA

#1 Mar 2, 2010
Reason for high increased health insurance premiums - you are paying for uninsured sponges and illegals who use emergency facilities for all their health care needs. Believe me, there are a lot of them and they use the facilities frequently for even the smallest issue. Lots of illegals paid quite a bit to get to America and they are now damn determined to cash in and make you pay -"Everything Free in America."
To add insult to injury, you president claims that his health care bill, which will add in excess of thirty one million new insured, will actually reduce the cost of health care for all. This is a major piece of his reparations agenda. And reparations legislation is his only interest.
People who work, pay their own way and vote democrat have only themselves to blame for any anger over rising taxes and government fees, more freeloaders on government programs and diminished services - and that union workers are exempt from paying any of the increased health care costs to cover the uninsured. Do not believe that some of them are losing their job because of this!
HellerCarbonCapN TradeLLC

Silver Spring, MD

#2 Mar 2, 2010
It's already quite clear that GIC and the Mass. health insurance experiment is an utter failure and will end up costing Mass. residents and taxpayers a lot more than anyone was ever promised or that anyone ever anticipated.
If that impending failure is acknowledged, though, what will that to the chances for the Obama Administration to pass the similarly flawed ObamaCare?
Thankfully, OBamaCare is doomed as ultimately is the Mass. experiment.
HellerCarbonCapN TradeLLC

Silver Spring, MD

#3 Mar 2, 2010
If that impending failure is acknowledged, though, what will that do to any chance the Obama Administration has to pass the similarly flawed ObamaCare?

Since: Jan 09

Queensbury, NY

#4 Mar 2, 2010
So in tthe opinion of the editor of this paper it's alright to mke false promises and threaten people with layoffs to get your way, as ruberto did in negotiations with the city Unions. He made promises orf raises if unions voted in favor of his proposal which, by the way, were never delivered. He threatened layoffs too, which happened anyway, even after the disaster orf a plan was approved. Then they raise our rates in the middle of the year, and ruberto and the council send a letter to the commission which carried no weight, but was a nice gesture. This mayor and council leadership lies so much they believe what they say to be true. Now he's hiring one of his lackeys, who he put on the School Building Needs Commission to vote his way, as his secretary. Isn't life wonderful in rubertoland? Not for much longer, trust me on that.
Living in GB

Shutesbury, MA

#5 Mar 2, 2010
" It would have been wiser of the GIC to increase premiums so communities can share the burden. " Are you serious? Make all the taxpayers pay the increased premiums so the union members won't have to share in the costs. Most people in the private sector have had their insurance costs and deductibles go up. Why should municipal employees be exempt?

Get a clue editors, we don't like it when we have to pay for the increases in our own insurance and now you think that it is a good idea for us to also pay the increase for the town employees.
private sector

Troy, NY

#6 Mar 2, 2010
my insurance costs have gone up more than
my yearly raise, I make less

I'm employed and do not qualify for any
low income extra's, I have less
get your facts right

Monsey, NY

#7 Mar 2, 2010
Living in GB wrote:
" It would have been wiser of the GIC to increase premiums so communities can share the burden. " Are you serious? Make all the taxpayers pay the increased premiums so the union members won't have to share in the costs. Most people in the private sector have had their insurance costs and deductibles go up. Why should municipal employees be exempt?
Get a clue editors, we don't like it when we have to pay for the increases in our own insurance and now you think that it is a good idea for us to also pay the increase for the town employees.
Hey stupid If the premiums go up Both the city AND the employes cost go up! Employees cost have gone up over 20% Maybe you should check the facts before you say dumb things!!!!!!
HellerCarbonCapN TradeLLC

Silver Spring, MD

#8 Mar 2, 2010
Living in GB wrote:
" It would have been wiser of the GIC to increase premiums so communities can share the burden. " Are you serious? Make all the taxpayers pay the increased premiums so the union members won't have to share in the costs. Most people in the private sector have had their insurance costs and deductibles go up. Why should municipal employees be exempt?
Get a clue editors, we don't like it when we have to pay for the increases in our own insurance and now you think that it is a good idea for us to also pay the increase for the town employees.
And remember, State and municipal employees are getting health insurance coverage FOR LIFE and all at the expense of taxpayers.
Comforting thought, eh?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusett...
Dave Harding

Chatham, NY

#9 Mar 3, 2010
What's the alternative? Rising health care costs are seriously crippling the abilities of the cities and towns to properly fund other parts of their budget. It would seem that by including a large pool of insurees in the mix , there might be a way to use this volume to lower costs. What IS certain is that an individual city or town has NO WAY to cut these costs. If you find fault with what this editorial is suggesting, tell us what you would do instead. What IS clear is that SOMETHING has to be done.
HellerCarbonCapN TradeLLC

Silver Spring, MD

#10 Mar 3, 2010
Dave Harding wrote:
What's the alternative? Rising health care costs are seriously crippling the abilities of the cities and towns to properly fund other parts of their budget. It would seem that by including a large pool of insurees in the mix , there might be a way to use this volume to lower costs. What IS certain is that an individual city or town has NO WAY to cut these costs. If you find fault with what this editorial is suggesting, tell us what you would do instead. What IS clear is that SOMETHING has to be done.
Why do taxpayers have to be on the hook for paying for the health insurance coverage of state and municipal employees FOR LIFE?
These hacks already get outrageous pensions from the state and municipalities, let them pay for their own health care coverage after retirement.
Would that not be a huge savings for the taxpayer?
HellerCarbonCapN TradeLLC

Springfield, MA

#11 Mar 3, 2010
HellerCarbonCapNTradeLLC wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do taxpayers have to be on the hook for paying for the health insurance coverage of state and municipal employees FOR LIFE?
These hacks already get outrageous pensions from the state and municipalities, let them pay for their own health care coverage after retirement.
Would that not be a huge savings for the taxpayer?
Please ignore this person using my name. He is part of a group of Tea Part member that is posting to Topix board all over the country. They use legitimate user name to confuse people. Please note the fake HellerCarbonCapNTradeLLC has a Virginia ISP (a Virginia Tea Party office, I have been told).
get your facts right

Monsey, NY

#12 Mar 3, 2010
HellerCarbonCapNTradeLLC wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do taxpayers have to be on the hook for paying for the health insurance coverage of state and municipal employees FOR LIFE?
These hacks already get outrageous pensions from the state and municipalities, let them pay for their own health care coverage after retirement.
Would that not be a huge savings for the taxpayer?
Hey brain dead I contibute 12% of my pay toward my pension.. Maybe if you got a job instead of playing on your computer you could get a pension!!!
HellerCarbonCapN TradeLLC

Silver Spring, MD

#13 Mar 3, 2010
get your facts right wrote:
<quoted text> Hey brain dead I contibute 12% of my pay toward my pension.. Maybe if you got a job instead of playing on your computer you could get a pension!!!
Are you a state or municipal employee getting health care insurance coverage FOR LIFE paid for by taxpayers even after you retire?
HellerCarbonCapN TradeLLC

Springfield, MA

#14 Mar 3, 2010
HellerCarbonCapNTradeLLC wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a state or municipal employee getting health care insurance coverage FOR LIFE paid for by taxpayers even after you retire?
Please ignore this person using my name. He is part of a group of Tea Part member that is posting to Topix board all over the country. They use legitimate user names to confuse people. Please note the fake HellerCarbonCapNTradeLLC has a Virginia ISP (a Virginia Tea Party office, I have been told).Please contact Michael Johns at [email protected] and tell them to stop this campain.
Patriot

South Weymouth, MA

#15 Mar 4, 2010
Everyone stop whining. This is what elections are for. The governor campaigned on a promise of "CHANGE" and his buddy Obama campaigned on a promise of "CHANGE". Well, there's your change. Happy?

If you thinks health care is expensive NOW, wait til it's FREE!

And remember, all these illegals are here to do the jobs "American's won't do." I have never seen ANYTHING an American won't do, but hey, they sold it, you bought it.
Patriot

South Weymouth, MA

#16 Mar 4, 2010
People think that the little pee hole in the snow they contribute to their pensions amount to squat. They don't. This is why our car companies are in the toilet. It's unsustainable, anyone with half a brain can see that. It's all part of the progressives Democrat and Republican alike to collapse the economy and start over with socialism. Why else would Obama surround himself with socialist and communist radicals and unions?

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfi...
DAN VALENTI

Stockbridge, MA

#17 Mar 5, 2010
HELLER asks the important Q. Why do taxpayers owe public servants health care for life? For that matter, why do taxpayers provide 85 to 90% of the premium costs? By law, a city is obligated only for 50%. The answer, of course, is bargaining. Public employees bargained for their rates. Fair and square. Why, however, is it likened to cardinal sin if the city says it's going to press for a new number on the split. A change in the split from 85-15 to 70-30 will save taxpayers approximately $12 million. 60-40 even more. Unless the shameful health care system is reformed, the city will have to drive more equitable splits for taxpayers. 60-40 is more than equitable, since it's 20% higher than the law requires, in favor of public employees. By the way, prior to the GIC article breaking in the Globe 3/4, I had scooped the story in my Eagle column two weeks before.
HellerCarbonCapN TradeLLC

Silver Spring, MD

#18 Mar 5, 2010
DAN VALENTI wrote:
HELLER asks the important Q. Why do taxpayers owe public servants health care for life? For that matter, why do taxpayers provide 85 to 90% of the premium costs? By law, a city is obligated only for 50%. The answer, of course, is bargaining. Public employees bargained for their rates. Fair and square. Why, however, is it likened to cardinal sin if the city says it's going to press for a new number on the split. A change in the split from 85-15 to 70-30 will save taxpayers approximately $12 million. 60-40 even more. Unless the shameful health care system is reformed, the city will have to drive more equitable splits for taxpayers. 60-40 is more than equitable, since it's 20% higher than the law requires, in favor of public employees. By the way, prior to the GIC article breaking in the Globe 3/4, I had scooped the story in my Eagle column two weeks before.
Mr. Valenti, it's doubtful that if the general taxpaying public had had an actual seat at the bargaining table, that these lousy deals with the public employee unions would have ever been agreed to.
It's high time that these local municipal union contracts were subject to a local public referendum.
Even 50%(the number you reference above) is too good for these public employee union hacks.
HellerCarbonCapN TradeLLC

Silver Spring, MD

#19 Mar 5, 2010
DAN VALENTI wrote:
HELLER asks the important Q. Why do taxpayers owe public servants health care for life? For that matter, why do taxpayers provide 85 to 90% of the premium costs? By law, a city is obligated only for 50%. The answer, of course, is bargaining. Public employees bargained for their rates. Fair and square. Why, however, is it likened to cardinal sin if the city says it's going to press for a new number on the split. A change in the split from 85-15 to 70-30 will save taxpayers approximately $12 million. 60-40 even more. Unless the shameful health care system is reformed, the city will have to drive more equitable splits for taxpayers. 60-40 is more than equitable, since it's 20% higher than the law requires, in favor of public employees. By the way, prior to the GIC article breaking in the Globe 3/4, I had scooped the story in my Eagle column two weeks before.
Further, it would be helpful to publicize the names of those who were actually sitting at that negotiating table supposedly representing the best interests of the city's taxpayers.
Was it Liberal Democrat Mayor James Ruberto?
Was it any of the Liberal Democrats on the City Council?
Please name names if you know exactly who these traitors to city taxpayers actually were.
HellerCarbonCapN TradeLLC

Shutesbury, MA

#20 Mar 5, 2010
HellerCarbonCapNTradeLLC wrote:
<quoted text>
Further, it would be helpful to publicize the names of those who were actually sitting at that negotiating table supposedly representing the best interests of the city's taxpayers.
Was it Liberal Democrat Mayor James Ruberto?
Was it any of the Liberal Democrats on the City Council?
Please name names if you know exactly who these traitors to city taxpayers actually were.
Please ignore this person using my name. He is part of a group of Tea Part member that is posting to Topix board all over the country. They use legitimate user names to confuse people. Please note the fake HellerCarbonCapNTradeLLC has a Virginia ISP (a Virginia Tea Party office, I have been told).Please contact Michael Johns at [email protected] and tell them to stop this campaign.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

North Reading Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gay meet up (May '13) 16 hr ChristianMonro1 28
Gross Jan 10 Billydog 1
Anyone have pictures of Barcelos Market in Ando... (Aug '11) Dec 28 Laura 2
News Netflix, CraveTV, Amazon and Canada's changing ... Dec '16 hope 1
News McDonald's fires sex offender after complaint (Mar '08) Nov '16 Tiff 178
Fire Sprinkler Contractor in Massachusettes? Nov '16 Ponch 2
factorytestkeyword Nov '16 fakename 1

North Reading Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

North Reading Mortgages