Molly Janczyk: Questions for OEA

From Molly Janczyk, June 11, 2010
Subject: FW: QUESTIONS FOR OEA: Ohio Schools: OEA statement concern

A statement was made by the OEA President, I believe. I do not have the magazine in front of me due to needed renovations with stacks of things everywhere.

The statement paraphrased also do to not having it in front of me was along the lines of: 'grateful to have access to STRS healthcare'.

Reason for concern:

in March of 2002, I read a one line sentence in the STRS Newsletter along the lines of some spousal changes in healthcare may occur. That is when I began calling STRS and contacting them through repetitive emails building to a daily emails. That simple sentence turned those who have spouses under STRS upside down never to recover. We went from minimal premiums to paying the entire premiums for spouses with no grandfathering or graduated steps which should have occurred for at least the previous decade.

When I asked why STRS had not put in gradual steps in the late eighties or early nineties as they were well aware of the impending crisis, I was told the membership would get upset. WOW! Like we weren't beyond destroyed to have it hit us in huge numbers without the ability to cover it with simple COLAS in 2003.

Joe Endry has just come to STRS as the Retiree Board member having served as Exec. Direc. of ORTA. He warned the Board and former STRS Exec. Direc. Dyer of the healthcare crisis looming saying if STRS did nothing then, early 90's, we could not afford healthcare in 10 yrs. He was right. Both OEA and STRS under Dyer said legislation to mandate STRS healthcare was unnecessary. Legislation was being considered to mandate healthcare in the early 90's by former STRS Board member Mary Ann Cervantes' father who was a legislator. Dyer stated he wanted STRS out of the healthcare business and my opinion is that he was just going to let it run out and that be that until 'disgruntled retirees' came into the picture with media cameras in 2003. But, too little, too late, as the bottom had dropped and long term planning and incremental increases and changes had not been put into place for that day when funds became challenged. So, retirees, with no warning who had made irrevocable decisions to retire, paid to save healthcare-with no grandfathering, no reserves, nothing but their own funds and at the expense of their personal homes, cars, lifestyle, denying themselves medical and RX treatments to pay for healthcare. Spousal subsidies were dropped, coverage went from 100% to 80%, RX's soared. COLAS stayed stagnant at first year of retirement rates and retirees lost more money every year forced back to work if able and to use personal finances if not.

Other answers were 'We were riding the wave' (Jack Chapman)-in other words, the STRS former Board members were simply counting on an endless upsweep of discretionary money evidently with not a thought of implementing incremental increases for premiums, RX, and out of pockets a decade earlier to prevent devastation overnight.

Point: I have learned simple inserted comment usually turns into fact when printed in STRS or OEA statements. I wonder why the word 'access' was used in this statement and

MY QUESTIONS ARE:

1. Are we headed towards retirees having to pay for their entire recipient premiums as well as for their spouses' entire premiums?

2. If yes, ARE CURRENT RETIREES GOING TO BE GRANDFATHERED WITH ACCESS ONLY APPLYING TO NEW RETIREES?