Comments (80) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Struggling just to get by
Tools
An Associated Press story datelined Carson City last week spelled out the concerns of some legislators that changes to state employee health insurance costs and benefits might be onerous to lower-salaried workers.
To support this concern, there was testimony from a tearful Susie Giurlani. She and her husband are both state employees whose pay has been reduced by mandated furloughs since 2009. Because deductibles in the state health insurance plan will be raised from $1,600 to $3,800, she testified the family will have to bear greater expenses for her son's insulin to treat his diabetes. Total out-of-pocket costs will be capped at $7,800 for a family.
"We are not the rich state employees that some people think we are," she told the joint Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance subcommittee.
"I'm punished because I chose to get a job with the state, 30 years ago, believing that I'd have reasonable health coverage," AP quoted her as saying through tears, adding she's "having a harder time in my life than when I was single."
Jim Wells, executive director of the Public Employees' Benefits Program, testified the health insurance changes are needed to cover an $85 million budget shortfall.
Reached at the desk of Sandra Giurlani in the Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation (DETR) on a recent afternoon, answering the phone by identifying herself as Susie, Ms. Giurlani confirmed she had testified and proceeded to explain how much her family has had to cut back in order to survive, forgoing vacations and home repairs. She confirmed her husband is John Giurlani, a Department of Public Safety captain.
On the Nevada Policy Research Institute website called TransparentNevada, her 2009 pay is listed as $70,213.02 and his as $93,689.45.
According to the DETR figures, in 2009 the statewide average wage was $41,464.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
If the costs for your family are going up, 1stateworker1, don't you think maybe the cost of doing business is going up for those utilities also? Must have been government schooled, huh?
Note to LVRJ - do some real work and interview the state workers making the average wage or less and let those stories be heard. I am one of those workers and starting in March we will start reviewing the health care "options" open to us effective July 1st. What this will mean for me and my family (with no other income) is that with rising food costs, gas costs, and utility costs (shame on you Cox, Nevada Energy, etc., etc. for raising your rates at such difficult economic times) we are definitely going to have to look for a cheaper place to live - how can I sacrifice my family's safety just to have health care? PS we have cell phones (no Iphones and the like), have one car, subscribe to the barest of cable options, do not eat out, do not go to movies/shows/any entertainment, do not shop for clothing and have to watch every penny that goes out of my pocket - I am the working poor and now I have to choose - health care or feed, clothe and house my family safely. This is the story you need to cover as I am not the only one.
@Tom.Reynolds February 26, 2011 10:18 PM
That is why we should allow the progress to continue. The laws on the books will cushion any fall back to the early 1900's should such occur and would serve to strengthen unionism if said event(s) were to take place. I think the unions have served their purpose and need to be placed on the back burner as it were, to be brought forward if needed in the future.
FAIR tax. Everyone pays. Corporations, employees, pimps criminals . If you buy something, you pay the tax. Period. Eliminate the income tax (tax on brains), eliminate the corporate tax. Institute a FAIR tax. If you buy $20/ pair of tennis shoes, you pay a tax on $20; if you buy a $200/pair of tennis shoes, you pay a tax on the same.
Don't tax people on their ability to produce, tax the product.
Let me see, I'm in the private sector. When I started my job 15 years ago, my employer paid 2/3 of my health insurance (and my family), it was supposedly the best in the state. Now... my employer pays 1/2 of dependents, or $10/pay check ($20/month) for a single person,no children. My co-pay is $25/per dr., $500/hospitalization, plus 20%.
So, my husband, born with asthma, spends about 10 days a year in the hospital, my kids spent a bout or so with pneumonia, and other issues. So, under private insurance, I paid $300/month, my employer paid $300/month, and three years in a row with co-pays, deductibles, and uncovered "sorry, not covered," I was billed at least $5,000 year on top of the $3,600/year I paid, and I'm supposed to feel sorry for gov't employees who are subsidized 100%, earning more than me.
Sorry, I don't think so.
@ xfmrhsd: your words may be closer to becoming reality than you think. I absolutely agree that laws protecting workers currently exist on the books. I also agree that it is illogical and unfair to categorically assume that ALL conservatives and libertarians would like to enslave workers. But it is equally unfair and illogical to assume that NONE of them would like to enslave workers. We hear a lot of talk about rolling back all the Progressive reforms of the last hundred years, for example. Which would take us back to the way our society was in 1911, and how many of those laws protecting workers existed in 1911? Or if we roll our society back to the way it was when the Constitution was ratified, as has also been suggested, then by definition we do away with Jacksonian democracy. And reintroduce things like property qualifications for voting. So again, I completely agree that it is not fair to assume that we WILL see abuse of workers again the instant we do away with unions. But I think there's a very real possibility we COULD. A possibility that definitely should be taken seriously.
Aformerrepublican (February 26, 2011 07:43) Median or average, private or public, you make a pragmatic verificationism here. Your statemant is a non sequitur. Haliburton employees are covered by the same laws as government employees, laws unions worked to to pass. It follows if these laws are good for private employees then these laws are good for public employees. Let the government employees live and work under the laws unions worked hard to enact, if they are truly effective, unions will have achieved their purpose and are no longer needed. If not, unions will come back with vengeance and laws on the books now will support it. At some point a movement must either succeed or fail, maybe it is time to see if unionism has succeeded. One thing is obvious, pressure is beginning to be applied.
Odd how the freak left feels that they have a claim on what others have earned, yet they often don't think that they should pay the taxes that are due. How many cheats in the light-weight's administration again? John Kerry did what?
GH: I agree that people might not have much sympathy, but this is only because they have some unreasonable disgust with public workers. If this story had been about Halliburton employees, the responses from the people decrying the wages, would have been on the opposite side. And, as an aside, I see that the DETR figure about $41k is the "average" and not the median.
Outoftowner, I agree with you 100 percent with you. Over a 6 figure family income and they are griping about health insurance.