Robs from the poor to feed the rich
The Times proposes that “state workers should share medical costs” [Opinion, Feb. 18] and suggests that employees increase their share of medical bills from 10 to 25 percent — with deductibles increasing from $250 to perhaps $1,000.
Perhaps United Health Care’s CEO, Stephen Hemsley, will agree with your proposal because he would then get a pay increase from his $1.3 million salary. In the past decade, he has received $1.7 billion and certainly could use some of the increased charges you suggest.
You complain that the private sector recognizes the pain of increased medical costs and ask, “Why should we pay more when you don’t have to?”
Access to health care and high costs are the symptoms of our sick health-care system that ranks 33rd in the world. Our government has tried for decades to reform American health care and the opportunity to modify our system is once again being considered in Congress.
The Times’ solution to charge the sick works for Rush Limbaugh, but fails for the 65 million uninsured. Perhaps you should include health-care reform in your next analysis of health-care costs.
— Bill Taylor, Renton
Look at Boeing’s benefit packages
Why doesn’t The Times criticize the Boeing workers’ pay and benefits package? Every time Boeing workers go on strike and get enriched, it costs everybody in the state, including the state workers.
To cover the higher wages and benefits, Boeing must sell its airplanes for more money. To cover that expense, the airlines must raise airfares. While it is obvious that the state’s fliers are directly impacted, when corporate people all across the country fly, they also have to pay more for their tickets. To recover the dollars they raise the prices of their goods for sale to the people of Washington.
For example, taxpayers have to pay more — through taxes — for the IBM computers they want installed in their children’s schools because IBM personnel have to pay more to fly for business.
The generous health-care package state workers enjoy is partial compensation for lower wages and a strong motivating factor. Providing good insurance coverage is cheaper than giving large pay raises because pay raises have the hidden 7.65 percent added cost of FICA and Medicare taxes the state has to pay — as well as the worker.
— Byron Gilbert, Seattle
Get benefit costs off my back
Responding to Nate Rozeboom’s letter [Northwest Voices, Feb. 16] and agreeing with the Feb. 18 editorial, I’m a county-government retiree, appreciative that I have my frozen retirement and the privilege of having “paying-in-full” retiree’s medical coverage and a Medicare premium.
It troubles me that state employees continue their elitist attitudes in the current economy. Their state employment existence is on the “backs” of the Washington taxpayers. For them to think they are so above those who really slave on frozen wages — scrimping just to survive — and above those who are homeless — including children — because of this turndown, reminds me of the financial executives who get bonus payments from stimulus and bailout funds while others suffer.
The time has come for state — and federal — employees to get real, take off their blinders, stop their infernal whining, suck it up and join the rest of us who are striving to rise out of these desperate days. Maybe the taxpayers will be more supportive of them.
— Marilyn Northrup, East Wenatchee