PDA

View Full Version : DEAR LEADER DEMANDS THAT YOU NOT READ THIS!



LWW
11-26-2011, 07:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Hartland-Lakeside School District, about 30 miles west of Milwaukee in tiny Hartland, Wis., had a problem in its collective bargaining contract with the local teachers union.

The contract required the school district to purchase health insurance from a company called WEA Trust. The creation of Wisconsin's largest teachers union -- "WEA" stands for Wisconsin Education Association -- WEA Trust made money when union officials used collective bargaining agreements to steer profitable business its way.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The problem for Hartland-Lakeside was that WEA Trust was charging significantly higher rates than the school district could find on the open market. School officials knew that because they got a better deal from United HealthCare for coverage of nonunion employees.</span> On more than one occasion, Superintendent Glenn Schilling asked WEA Trust why the rates were so high. "I could never get a definitive answer on that," says Schilling.

Changing to a different insurance company would save Hartland-Lakeside hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent on key educational priorities -- especially important since the cash-strapped state government was cutting back on education funding. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>But teachers union officials wouldn't allow it</span>; the WEA Trust requirement was in the contract, and union leaders refused to let Hartland-Lakeside off the hook.

That's where Wisconsin's new budget law came in. The law, bitterly opposed by organized labor in the state and across the nation, limits the collective bargaining powers of some public employees. And it just happens that the Hartland-Lakeside teachers' collective bargaining agreement expired on June 30. So now, freed from the expensive WEA Trust deal, the school district has changed insurers.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"It's going to save us about $690,000 in 2011-2012," says Schilling. Insurance costs that had been about $2.5 million a year will now be around $1.8 million. What union leaders said would be a catastrophe will in fact be a boon to teachers and students.</span>

But the effect of weakening collective bargaining goes beyond money. It also has the potential to reshape the adversarial culture that often afflicts public education. In Hartland-Lakeside, there's been no war between union-busting bureaucrats on one side and impassioned teachers on the other; Schilling speaks with great collegiality toward the teachers and says with pride that they've been able to work together on big issues. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>But there has been a deep division between the school district and top union executives.</span>

In the health insurance talks, for example, Schilling last year began telling teachers about different insurance plans, some of which, like United HealthCare's, required a higher deductible. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>"We involved them, and they overwhelmingly endorsed the change to United HealthCare,"</span> he says. But even with the teachers on board, when school officials presented a change-in-coverage proposal to union officials, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>it was immediately rejected. The costly WEA Trust deal stayed in place.</span>

Now, with the collective bargaining agreement gone, Schilling looks forward to working more closely with teachers. "I would say the biggest change is we have a lot more involvement with a wider scope of teachers," he says. When collective bargaining was in effect, "We dealt with a select team of teachers, a small group of three or four who were on the bargaining team, and then the union director. Any information that went to the teachers went through them. Now, we feel that we will have a direct dialogue."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>It's not hard to see why union officials hate the new law so much. It not only breaks up cherished and lucrative union monopolies like high-cost health insurance; it also threatens to break through the union-built wall between teachers and administrators and allow the two sides to work together more closely. The old union go-betweens, who controlled what their members could and could not hear, will be left aside.</span>

Hartland-Lakeside isn't the only school district that is pulling free from collective bargaining agreements that mandated WEA Trust coverage. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports the Pewaukee School District, not far from Hartland-Lakeside, will save $378,000 by next year by leaving WEA Trust. The Menomonee Falls School District, farther north, will reportedly save $1.3 million. Facing state cutbacks, the districts can't afford to overpay for union-affiliated coverage.

Look for the unions to fight back with everything they have. If the Wisconsin situation has shown anything, it is that organized labor views the collective bargaining fight as a life-or-death struggle. If the unions lose in Wisconsin, the clamor for change could spread to other states. What happened in Hartland-Lakeside could become a model for other schools looking for new and better ways to do business.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2...s#ixzz1eorgvgTy (http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/wisconsin-schools-buck-union-cut-health-costs#ixzz1eorgvgTy) </div></div>

Soflasnapper
11-26-2011, 10:20 AM
I do not take Byron York to be a reputable reporter, nor the Examiner, a reputable paper. Both are right wing tools who willingly slant their reporting. Accordingly, rather than rely on the right wing paper's summary, I looked at local Milwaukee paper reporting, and by searching on WEA Trust, I found the following, which gives lie to the reporting cited here.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> WEA Trust vies as it should

By Kathryne Mcgowan

Dec. 6, 2010 |(8) Comments

I am writing in response to columnist Patrick McIlheran's angry attack on my company, the WEA Trust.

He wrote in a Dec. 2 column on Perspectives that my company just lost the Milton School District as a health insurance customer because we were outbid. That is true. We competed in a fair bid process, and in this instance, the school district chose another carrier.

But McIlheran went on to make a series of unfounded and unwarranted statements that we must refute. He concluded that because we lost the business, my company, therefore, "sucks away scarce school money" from all of our state's schools where we do business. It's a choice between "more taxes or more ignorance," he says.

That's outrageous.

In fact, we lost business to competitive market forces. Here are the facts:

• The WEA Trust competes in the marketplace. We win and lose school district business all the time as insurance companies around the state compete in the school health insurance market.

• Our business model is competitive. We were formed to pool the state's smallest districts together to give them more bargaining power and protection from abusive insurance practices in the small group market. That's the market at work - a model that groups representing small businesses and farmers are trying to emulate.

• We're good at what we do. It is true we administer excellent benefits and excellent service. And it is true health insurance is expensive - and teachers have bargained away salary to keep their benefits, as have many other workers in both the public and private sectors. We earned that loyalty - and would like to keep it. That's what successful companies do.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Trust was created 40 years ago by the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state's largest teachers union, but it does not "own" the Trust. We're a state-regulated, full-service, not-for-profit health insurance company.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>It is true we have some advantages. As a company created to serve school districts, we know the business. We don't have corporate jets, million-dollar CEOs or stockholders demanding a share of the profits. So we're able to return to school districts (and taxpayers) 93 cents for every dollar in premiums we receive as benefits.
</span>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The competition is tough. Some competitors win business by promising two years of very low premiums. That's what happened in Kenosha. But just this year, that school district's insurance premiums soared - and now they're our customer once again. The same scenario occurred in the Monroe and TriCounty school districts.
</span>
The Trust is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing in the marketplace: competing hard for customer business and customer loyalty.

Kathryne McGowan is vice president for marketing and product development for the WEA Trust.
</div></div>

Link (http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/111411744.html)

From comments:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As a chief negotiator for a teachers' union for many years, I can tell you this essay is exactly right on. Teachers in effect pay for their own insurance by reduced wages. They will always take the most economical plan. This does not mean the cheapest plan. In the past our school district picked plans other than WEAIT, and as said in the article they were cheaper on paper in the short term. They did not stay cheaper for long, plus it is very difficult to compare on plan to another. The plans are not entirely transparent. What is "usual and customary" for one plan is different for another. We learned that we could trust WEAIT to do what they say. This is not true for all insurance plans. The fact that WEAIT pays 93% of its premiums out in medical care for its policy holders is much higher than is even required in the new health care bill. The criticism of this company is off base and shows ignorance of the issues. It lacks understanding of WEAIT and of the process of negotiation for health care coverage by teachers' unions. It is the usual right wing attack by McIlheran on unions and public employees, full of sound and fury but lacking much substance.</div></div>

LWW
11-26-2011, 10:25 AM
You are aware that your "PROOF" backs up my position far better than it does yours?

Probably not .... because, once again I have an unfair advantage over you as I read both articles.

LWW
11-26-2011, 10:38 AM
Since you did a search to find that piece on JSONLINE ... which is nothing more than the paper parroting the WEA Trust's propaganda ... I'm wondering how you managed to miss THIS (http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/124953739.html) from the same site:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A health insurance company affiliated with the state's largest teachers union is refusing to release hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal money to school districts that recently dropped the company in favor of less expensive providers.

The federal money, which the nonprofit WEA Trust applied for on behalf of individual school districts, is intended to offset high-cost medical claims for early retirees ages 55 and older who are not yet eligible for Medicare. WEA Trust is affiliated with the Wisconsin Education Association Council.

School officials argue that WEA Trust applied for the federal money during the 2010-'11 fiscal year, which ended Thursday, so the money should be credited to the same year. WEA Trust officials contend the money should be carried forward as 2011-'12 insurance premium credits.

So far, there's no definitive answer at the federal level - at least not one they can agree on.

School districts forfeited the money if they switched providers because federal rules dictate it must be disbursed to current plan participants, according to WEA Trust. The forfeited money will be divided among plan participants in school districts that remain with WEA Trust, company officials told the Journal Sentinel.

Some school officials whose districts stand to lose the federal money are seeing red, while others are focusing on the savings they still will achieve by switching to other insurance providers.

WEA Trust declined to reveal the total amount of federal money being withheld from school districts that left the trust. But one official said the trust collected a total of $9 million on behalf of school districts in its plan.

Hartland-Lakeside Superintendent Glenn Schilling accused WEA Trust of telling school districts in March that they would receive the federal money as a premium credit for fiscal 2011-'12 "because they wanted to retain their business" - not because federal rules required it.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"We believe that your method of connecting this credit to an insurance renewal with WEA is unethical," the superintendent wrote last week in a letter to Kathryn Otto, director of sales for WEA Trust.</span>

In a March letter to Schilling, Otto wrote that the WEA Trust had applied for and received funds from the federal government on the district's behalf, "which we will be passing on to you." The letter said the Hartland-Lakeside district was "eligible to receive $46,103 in the form of a premium credit to be used during your 2011-'12 WEA Trust plan year."

The Hartland-Lakeside district now stands to lose that money because the School Board voted Thursday to drop WEA Trust. But by switching to United HealthCare, the district still expects to save $690,000 in the new fiscal year, which started Friday, Schilling said.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"If WEA Trust is a nonprofit, why are they so expensive?"</span> Schilling added.

The Hartland-Lakeside district serves the village of Hartland and the towns of Delafield, Merton and Pewaukee.

The Pewaukee School District could lose nearly $60,000 because its School Board voted Friday to switch from WEA Trust to United Healthcare. The switch still will offer the district $378,000 in savings for next year, said Assistant Superintendent John Gahan.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Pewaukee's request for the federal money to be paid in a lump sum the final month of its contract with WEA Trust was denied, according to the district.</span>

The Hartland-Lakeside and Pewaukee districts were able to switch insurance providers because their teachers union contracts expired Thursday. School districts no longer have to bargain over health insurance under the state's new collective bargaining law, and many shopped for less expensive plans because they faced deep state funding cuts.

The Menomonee Falls School District is losing more than $100,000 in federal money because its teachers union agreed last month to a switch from WEA Trust to Humana. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>But the provider change otherwise will save the district $1.3 million in the new fiscal year</span>, according to school officials.

"We'll have a long-term savings with Humana," said Superintendent Keith Marty, who left Menomonee Falls last week to become superintendent of a Missouri school district. "WEA Trust served the district very well," he said. "But we needed to make sure we had the best bang for our buck, given that we were going to face significant (state aid) cuts."

WEA Trust followed federal rules that apply to the early retiree insurance program, said WEA Trust spokesman Steve Lyons.

"Federal law prohibits the dollars to go with school districts that leave the plan," Lyons said. "It's not school district money. It belongs to plan participants."

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>WEA Trust did not provide federal program documentation to support its position.</span> But company officials said distributing the money to nonparticipating school districts now could prompt penalties.

It's a year-to-year program, said Vaughn Vance, an attorney for WEA Trust.

"You can only use the funds to offset future premium increases, so you can't use it until after you renew," Vance said.

Schilling, the Hartland-Lakeside superintendent, wants proof.

"Show me the language that says it has to be a credit for next year," he said.

Schilling and others have been trying to nail down the federal rules.

WEA Trust never informed Schilling that it was applying for the federal money on the school district's behalf, or that the district could have applied for the money on its own, Schilling said.

"A lot of school districts are irritated by the way WEA handled this," he said. "There was no communication. We had insurance consultants look at this, and even they were shrugging their shoulders."

At the start of 2011, WEA Trust provided health insurance coverage for more than 250 of Wisconsin's 424 school districts, according to Otto. A number of districts switched providers this spring and in recent weeks. Otto declined to reveal how many districts dropped WEA Trust, but said other districts joined WEA Trust because it offered competitive rates.

The window has now closed for districts to apply for the federal money in the future if they didn't apply in the 2010-'11 fiscal year, she said.

Affordable Care Act

The temporary program, called the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, was created by the federal Affordable Care Act in June 2010. It's due to expire the end of 2013, when other provisions of the Affordable Care Act go into effect, and it theoretically will be easier for early retirees to obtain coverage through new state health insurance exchanges.

The program's intent was to encourage employers to maintain health insurance coverage for early retirees, as the percentage of large employers providing workers with retiree health coverage dropped from 66% in 1988 to 29% in 2009. The program pays 80% of each insurance claim for an early retiree that exceeds $15,000, up to $90,000.

As part of the program, the federal government set aside $5 billion in financial assistance to employers and unions to help reduce the total cost of the plan or the costs paid by retirees.

The federal assistance funds may be used to reduce the share of premiums paid by early retirees, or to reduce deductibles or co-pays. If the plan's total premiums go up year to year, the funds could be used to offset increases. However, the law specifies that the federal payments may not be used by employers as "general revenue."

As a plan sponsor, the WEA Trust could legally apply for and receive the federal funds on behalf of school districts it represented. Schilling, of Hartland-Lakeside, does not dispute that.

The Lake Country School District in Hartland is among the school districts that stand to cash in on the federal money because it stuck with WEA Trust.

"Had we switched, we would have explored going after (the federal money) like some districts are doing," said Lake Country Superintendent Mark Lichte, whose district expects to collect $12,000 in premium credits in the new fiscal year.

"My understanding was it was supposed to be a credit for 2010-'11," Lichte said. </div></div>

Next lame excuse for union thuggery?

Soflasnapper
11-26-2011, 11:33 AM
The WEA Trust is not a union, nor is it owned by any union. It's a separate and independent body, and has been for all the decades from its creation.

Apparently, the school districts are disallowed by federal law from having their cake and eating it too (meaning, getting a temporarily lowered premium from changing carriers, as well as receiving a smallish rebate that can only be given to those covered by their previous plan, which they've discarded).

Or not, as some of the districts are complaining, although they are not quite claiming the opposite, per this, but instead demanding to see the terms of the law.

In your pose of omniscience, you somehow pretend to know the WEA Trust must be wrong about what the new law says. Even though the school districts aren't certain.

And then tie it into Obama (dear leader), which is ridiculous.

It would now be wise for you to stop trying to say you know what new laws prescribe, or swearing that each and every claim against any union-related situation must always be true.

Evidently, you do not have the experience of many small businesses (my own included), whereby the 'low bidder' for insurance indeed gives the low rate for two years (the only part guaranteed), and then hits the company with a 40% to 50% proposed increase as soon as the temporary guarantee expires.

That is always what happens in my experience, and it's happened a half dozen times exactly that way. It's a kind of bait and switch, where all the apparent early year savings are forfeited to increases in the out years.

The WEA Trust spokesperson mentions that they have regained contracts with school districts for exactly this reason.

LWW
11-26-2011, 02:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The WEA Trust is not a union, nor is it owned by any union. It's a separate and independent body, and has been for all the decades from its creation.</div></div>

Did you get a gold star for licking that lie off the spoon?

If your statement is true, how do you explain the reality of:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While technically they are separate entities, there’s little doubt that WEA Trust and WEAC,
the labor union that founded it, maintain strong administrative and financial ties.

The organizations have the same home, at 33 Nob Hill Drive in Madison. Three members of
the union’s “leadership team” - President Mary Bell, Director Amy Johnson and Director
Suzanne Kahl - are also members of the WEA Trust board.</div></div>

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS (http://www.publicschoolspending.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/WEATrustfinalreport1.pdf)

What spoon fed bit of propaganda would you like to parrot next?

Qtec
11-27-2011, 02:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A health insurance company affiliated with the state's largest teachers union is caught in the cross-fire of Wisconsin school reform politics, the company's CEO told the Journal Sentinel editorial board Monday.

"We haven't really wanted to be the story," said Mark Moody, president and CEO of WEA Trust. "We've become the lightning rod for debate."

Moody said WEA Trust has lost about 17% of its subscribers as a number of school districts have switched insurance providers in the wake of deep state budget cuts. WEA Trust at the start of the year insured two-thirds of Wisconsin's 424 school districts, but only 35% of the state's teachers, since many of the insured districts are small, he said.

One renewal sweetener WEA Trust offered to districts - which the provider said was done in accordance with federal rules - may prompt legal action.

WEA Trust applied for and received $18 million in federal money from a temporary federal program created to offset health insurance costs for early retirees.

When WEA Trust sent letters in March to school districts it insures, stating the money had been received and would be passed along to them, the letters specified districts could only get it as premium credits for the 2011-'12 year. That meant districts would have to renew insurance contracts with WEA Trust.

Districts that switched companies did not get a cut.

WEA Trust said the money belongs to the insurance plan, while school officials claim the money belongs to districts to offset early retiree insurance costs for the year it was applied for and received: 2010-'11.

Hartland-Lakeside Superintendent Glenn Schilling said Monday that the school board last week authorized him to explore possible legal action against WEA Trust.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Moody asked to meet with the Journal Sentinel's editorial board because he said misinformation has been spread about the insurance company, particularly by the state Republican Party, which he said has depicted the teachers union and WEA Trust as one entity.

<u>"We are separate legal entities," Moody said. "We are not funding the union and its political operations."</u></span>

Moody acknowledged that one WEA Trust board member is elected by the teachers union, the Wisconsin Education Association Council.

Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) on Monday said she pushed years ago for health insurance to be removed from collective bargaining agreements, but former Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed the move.

She said people have to question why WEA Trust has long been considered a "sacred cow."

"We're not against any particular insurance company, we just want competitive bids and the best money for bids, and taxpayer money that goes into classrooms and teachers instead of an insurance company that doesn't have to compete in the private market," Darling said in a phone interview.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Moody said it was a misconception that WEA Trust does not offer competitive rates. "Changing plan design has saved money (for some districts), not just switching plans," he said.

WEA expects to win back many districts it lost <u>because competing insurance providers "priced aggressively to win business," but won't be able to sustain the lower rates, and will have to raise them in two to three years, Moody said.</u>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Some districts, he said, "take their chances on getting the best rates now, and roll the dice for the next year.</span>"</span>

WEA Trust did adjust its rates as competition heated up, Moody said.

"There are certain instances we have to make adjustments and may offer low price now and with less certainty in the future. In other cases, we've said this is a critical account for us and we're not going to lose it." </div></div>

link (http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/126151423.html)

Cheaper is not always better.

Q

LWW
11-27-2011, 04:41 AM
So your point is that you blindly accept the spoon feeding from the WEA Trust?

I never suspected you would do otherwise.


But, by that standard of "PROOF" Charles Manson should immediately be released because he insists he is innocent.

Qtec
11-27-2011, 05:40 AM
As usual, your post contained no rebuttal. Your guy never even bothers to hear the other side of the story.

I provided it.

You don't like it? Too bad.

Q

Soflasnapper
11-27-2011, 11:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The WEA Trust is not a union, nor is it owned by any union. It's a separate and independent body, and has been for all the decades from its creation.</div></div>

Did you get a gold star for licking that lie off the spoon?

If your statement is true, how do you explain the reality of:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While technically they are separate entities, there’s little doubt that WEA Trust and WEAC,
the labor union that founded it, maintain strong administrative and financial ties.

The organizations have the same home, at 33 Nob Hill Drive in Madison. Three members of
the union’s “leadership team” - President Mary Bell, Director Amy Johnson and Director
Suzanne Kahl - are also members of the WEA Trust board.</div></div>

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS (http://www.publicschoolspending.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/WEATrustfinalreport1.pdf)

What spoon fed bit of propaganda would you like to parrot next?
</div></div>

Which thereby proves the WEA Trust IS a union, or is OWNED by a union?

Oh, wait, it doesn't prove either of those, and neither is actually true.

Soflasnapper
11-27-2011, 11:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So your point is that you blindly accept the spoon feeding from the WEA Trust?

I never suspected you would do otherwise.


But, by that standard of "PROOF" Charles Manson should immediately be released because he insists he is innocent. </div></div>

Thank you for pointing out your and Byron York's error.

For you have done exactly this same thing, except relying entirely on the PROSECUTION'S side, without hearing from the defense.

According to the prosecution's side, the accused is always clearly guilty. And without hearing the defense, it would seem that any accused is indeed entirely guilty. Somehow, once a defense is mounted, often the accused is found not guilty by trial.

This shows the problem with York's writing. It isn't journalism, but advocacy writing. Journalism requires some even-handedness, and soliciting the responses of the other side, even if they are quite guilty (a determination that awaits a fair review).

You will notice NO such comment or information in the York 'article.' Or any claim that he had sought the response from the WEA Trust, but nobody returned his call for their side.

So what I cited IS THE RESPONSE (from the other side) that York should have put in his piece, and together we have roughly the pro and con sides, with which to make a more properly informed decision.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[...]first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.</div></div>

hondo
11-27-2011, 12:53 PM
I didn't read it.

LWW
11-27-2011, 01:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The WEA Trust is not a union, nor is it owned by any union. It's a separate and independent body, and has been for all the decades from its creation.</div></div>

Did you get a gold star for licking that lie off the spoon?

If your statement is true, how do you explain the reality of:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While technically they are separate entities, there’s little doubt that WEA Trust and WEAC,
the labor union that founded it, maintain strong administrative and financial ties.

The organizations have the same home, at 33 Nob Hill Drive in Madison. Three members of
the union’s “leadership team” - President Mary Bell, Director Amy Johnson and Director
Suzanne Kahl - are also members of the WEA Trust board.</div></div>

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS (http://www.publicschoolspending.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/WEATrustfinalreport1.pdf)

What spoon fed bit of propaganda would you like to parrot next?
</div></div>

Which thereby proves the WEA Trust IS a union, or is OWNED by a union?

Oh, wait, it doesn't prove either of those, and neither is actually true. </div></div>

It proves that:

1 - They have intermingling of board members.

2 - They operate from the same location.

3 - They operate under essentially the same name.

4 - One was founded by the other.

5 - If the party tells you that the above proves nothing, you will accept that without qualm nor trepidation.

So, what was your point ... other than prove to your masters that you were an obedient tool?

LWW
11-27-2011, 01:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For you have done exactly this same thing, except relying entirely on the PROSECUTION'S side, without hearing from the defense.</div></div>

Actually ... that's a lie.

My source considered the opinions of several individuals and groups, while yours did not.

I also considered both sources, while you did not.

Again, what is your point ... other to prove you will always slavishly obey the left's "OPINION" they have assigned to you?

Soflasnapper
11-27-2011, 05:16 PM
So you find the partisan right to be a neutral and reliable source for truth? Interesting, but sad if so.

I believe in the free marketplace of ideas, consulting both sides. Presuming both may slant things their way is the best presumption, and when open to hearing the arguments AND counterarguments of each side, one has the best evidence and reasoning upon which to take a considered opinion. As I mentioned, York failed to deliver on such a standard, which is basic journalism 101. He's not a journalist, but a polemicist.

Considering that BEFORE the WI union busting bill, WEA Trust had 2/3rds of the districts, and 35% of the teachers, the unions clearly did not, in general, dictate that their affiliated but independent insurance company be the (sole) named carrier, although they may have done that in some cases (one that has been named above being the only one in evidence here).

As further discussion has mentioned, that the SCHOOL DISTRICT saves money doesn't mean that the TEACHERS save money, as one way the school districts save money on this is by charging the teachers more. Other technical differences in the contracts, as for example, what is or is not considered usual and customary in the plans, may also cost the teachers more (although saving money for the school districts). The WEA Trust offers such alternate plans at lower cost as well.

Also, as was mentioned, the apparent immediate next years' savings end up costing the school districts more money on a longer time frame, and they end up returning to the supposed 'higher cost' plans that are really more economical over time.

LWW
11-28-2011, 04:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you find the partisan right to be a neutral and reliable source for truth? Interesting, but sad if so.</div></div>

Why are you deflecting?

The point is that they share board members and operate from the same office location ... yet you insist they are entirely separate entities? A crack addled chimp can see through that.

LWW
11-28-2011, 04:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe in the free marketplace of ideas, consulting both sides. </div></div>

No, you most assuredly do not.

You nearly always toe the party line and parrot whatever "OPINION" is fed to you.

On the fare instance where you don't, more often than not it's because the party line wasn't left enough for you so you parrot what the most radical extremists of the left tell you that you believe.

LWW
11-28-2011, 04:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Considering that BEFORE the WI union busting bill, WEA Trust had 2/3rds of the districts, and 35% of the teachers, the unions clearly did not, in general, dictate that their affiliated but independent insurance company be the (sole) named carrier, although they may have done that in some cases (one that has been named above being the only one in evidence here).</div></div>

Actually ... all evidence is to the contrary, including that they consistently had the highest premium prices in the state.

Qtec
11-28-2011, 05:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For you have done exactly this same thing, except relying entirely on the PROSECUTION'S side, without hearing from the defense.</div></div>

Actually ... that's a lie.

My source considered the opinions of several individuals and groups, while yours did not.

I also considered both sources, while you did not.

Again, what is your point ... other to prove you will always slavishly obey the left's "OPINION" they have assigned to you? </div></div>


Lets consider your source. Here is the first page Snoopy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FOREWORD
<span style='font-size: 26pt'>This is by no means a scientific study.</span><span style="color: #3333FF"> LMAO </span>This is a report, based on a review of insurance data from school districts throughout Wisconsin, many interviews with school personnel and state officials, and research of <span style='font-size: 26pt'>local press clippings</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">LMAO again!!</span> and other relevant material.
This is obviously not the first report focused on the high cost and<span style='font-size: 26pt'> unfair nature</span> of school employee health insurance in Wisconsin </div></div>

Unfair nature? Sounds like your source has ALREADY made up its mind in the FIRST PARAGRAPH!!!!!!

Keep it up Snoopy.

Q.......LOL............ /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif

eg8r
11-28-2011, 09:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unfair nature? Sounds like your source has ALREADY made up its mind in the FIRST PARAGRAPH!!!!!!
</div></div>When have you ever read an article written by someone who has not already made up their mind before they wrote the article? What is happening here is that the author is telling you what happened and will follow that up with the detail throughout the rest of the article.


eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-28-2011, 10:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you find the partisan right to be a neutral and reliable source for truth? Interesting, but sad if so.</div></div>

Why are you deflecting?

The point is that they share board members and operate from the same office location ... yet you insist they are entirely separate entities? A crack addled chimp can see through that. </div></div>

You may not understand how these things work.

I am on the board of directors of about six closely held corporations, with significant interlocking directorships (most, but not all, the same), and all showing the same legal address. Most of these share the identical name, except for different Roman numeral designation after that identical name.

These are all separate corporations, no co-mingling of assets or income, and absolutely no cross-liability, despite ownership by exactly in some cases, or substantially the same, persons.

Neither sharing the same office building or legal address, nor sharing directors, makes them the same companies.

I'm also the sole trustee for multiple revocable and irrevocable trusts, all with the same addresses again. None of these are the same as the others, even though they share some names in common.

Many non-profits set up foundations of a similar name, so as to provide a legal tax deductibility for a 501c different company. Take the ACLU for one example-- since it is a political lobbying organization, donations to it are not tax deductible. However, donations to the ACLU Foundation ARE tax deductible, despite having a very similar name, and likely, sharing a common address. How do they (and countless others) 'get away with this'? Simply by creating the proper independent business structure, making sure not to co-mingle funds, and in all other ways, treating the two (related) corporate entities as separate organizations.

By your theory here, we might also claim that the Ford Motor Company must be the same thing as the Ford Foundation, since they probably share board members in common, and perhaps share a common office building address.

The WEA set up the WEA Trust 40 years back with a $5,000 loan to get it started.

Soflasnapper
11-28-2011, 10:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe in the free marketplace of ideas, consulting both sides. </div></div>

No, you most assuredly do not.

You nearly always toe the party line and parrot whatever "OPINION" is fed to you.

On the [r]are instance where you don't, more often than not it's because the party line wasn't left enough for you so you parrot what the most radical extremists of the left tell you that you believe. </div></div>

When you make obvious errors of fact, logic, or history, correcting those errors isn't a partisan exercise. You've been off on numbers by 700% or more on multiple occasions. Correcting such blatant errors is not partisan.

Fact is, even if someone is clearly on my side of the partisan divide, if an argument or fact is wrong in my view, I make that correction to them as well.

Rather than ever admit to an error, or make another counter-argument, you call the correction a partisan hit job. It is not.

You just yesterday or today opined that the only reason anyone would question Tebow's pro potential as a QB is the animus of the left over his forthright Christianity. (???) Not that everybody admits he has very bad technique and mechanics when he passes the football, but a political bias is the only reason for expressions of doubt.

You are a far gone case.

Perhaps you believe the many slanted and erroneous pieces you link to. If so, you should get out a bit more.