CHEYENNE -- A Cheyenne lawmaker is pushing a bill to give full health insurance benefits to all members of the state Legislature.
A state fiscal analysis says that if all 90 lawmakers signed up for full family coverage, the proposal could cost the state up to $2.1 million a year. That would amount to more than $23,000 in new benefits for each lawmaker if the program went into effect in 2013 as proposed.
Sponsor Rep. David Zwonitzer, R-Cheyenne, said Monday that he's bringing it mainly to prompt discussion among lawmakers about the prospect of increasing their compensation.
Lawmakers currently get $259 a day for salary and expenses plus mileage when they're working. The Legislature alternates between 20-day and 40-day sessions each year and committees also hold interim meetings.
Zwonitzer said offering the health insurance coverage could encourage more people to run for office.
"I basically am proposing it because I think it's worthy of discussion," Zwonitzer said. "We're trying to keep talented people in the Legislature."
Zwonitzer said the state doesn't currently offer any insurance coverage to lawmakers. He said the bill is his first attempt to raise the issue.
Gov. Dave Freudenthal issued a one-sentence statement to the bill on Monday in response to a reporter's request for comment: "It is an interesting and an astounding proposal."
Dan Neal, executive director of the Equality State Policy Center, said Monday that his group is generally in favor of making service in the Legislature more affordable and desirable so more people can run for office.
"In general, we support efforts to pay these legislators more, because first of all, we think they work very hard," Neal said. "And also, better compensation will mean better variety -- because as you know there are many segments of the population that aren't represented in the Legislature. For instance, I don't think there are any waiters and waitresses in the Legislature."
However, Neal said he found the $2.1 million estimated price tag extremely high.
The nonpartisan Legislative Service Office prepared the financial analysis of the bill. Its cost estimate assumes that all 90 legislators sign up for family coverage with the lowest deductible option, and also that they all opt for an optional dental plan and life insurance.
The bill also includes a provision that would allow former members of the Legislature to be treated as retirees for purposes of maintaining state insurance coverage.
Zwonitzer said he has talked to other lawmakers about his bill, but said he has found no co-sponsors.
"Most of them do not want to sign onto the bill because it's going to be a hot topic, and I'm bringing it without any co-sponsors, mostly for the sake of discussion," Zwonitzer said. "Most of them at the moment are wanting to hear the debate on it."
Zwonitzer said lawmakers would like to establish health insurance for everyone in the state, especially those who have a dire need for it.
"So it's a little untimely to be bringing this bill at this time," Zwonitzer said. "But if we can figure out a way to make this happen, possibly it will trickle down to other residents of the state."
Rep. Ken Esquibel, D-Cheyenne, serves on the Legislature's Labor, Health and Social Services Committee. He said Monday he's willing to review Zwonitzer's proposal, but questioned how many legislators don't already have health insurance through their private employment.
"If we were more of a full-time Legislature, I think it would probably be something that we would have to look at," Esquibel said. "But most of us have our own jobs. I guess we'd have to find out how many of use don't have health care coverage, and aren't covered by plans at work and in our private lives."
However, Esquibel said he sees the need to increase compensation for lawmakers.
"I'm not sure if there is really any financial benefits to do the job for the average working person because you're not going to be making more money doing this than you would in your personal life," Esquibel said. "I take probably a 50 percent pay cut to serve in the Legislature, and I'm sure that there are probably others out there who sacrifice even more."
Print this story
E-mail this story
Rate this story
Reader Comments
Comments to this story.
Albany Mountain wrote on Dec 22, 2008 9:17 PM:
they can buy their own.
They should put priority on how to bring this to all residents; not just theirselves. "
Landerman wrote on Dec 23, 2008 7:45 AM:
69FORD wrote on Dec 23, 2008 8:25 AM:
Ben wrote on Dec 23, 2008 9:46 AM:
edgar wrote on Dec 23, 2008 9:56 AM:
sarah wrote on Dec 23, 2008 10:49 AM:
Kaycee wrote on Dec 23, 2008 12:20 PM:
wait wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:17 PM:
Just like the study for state employees. They spend more on studies than it would take to fund the entire state salaries for a couple years. After which they are unable to fund it because they spent the money on studies. (sound familiar to the casper school district?)
Let them pay for their share just like the employees have to every payday. "
Ralph wrote on Dec 23, 2008 5:19 PM:
Why don't you and the legislature try to solve the Health Insurance problems instead of taking care of yourself first.
Thanks to the 30% bianual increase from our favorite instate Health Insurer, I have about one more year that I will be able to afford a $20000 deductable plan.
Solve the problem, don't just throw money at it to cover it up. "
Anthony wrote on Dec 23, 2008 6:27 PM:
I'm glad Mr. Zwonitzer has wanted to open this up for discussion, but based on the comments I have seen (and heard) thus far, I think he'll be sorry he picked this topic... "
wyoming guy wrote on Dec 23, 2008 6:50 PM:
Frustrated Lobbyist wrote on Dec 23, 2008 7:52 PM:
Legislators lose their private insurance during session unless they are retired or go on their spouse's plan. They have to go on COBRA or lose their insurance altogether.
This $250/day includes all the expenses they pay, including hotel rooms at $75/night, their meals, incidentals, insurance, retirement, etc. The average Legislator in Wyoming estimates they lose $12,000/year in income for their service to the people.
No one can afford to serve who isn't retired or a lawyer. Two new freshmen are 76 & 78 years old.
The people of Wyoming and their demand is forcing our legislators to work longer and harder for less compensation and very few races are challenged because no one can afford to serve. If the people of this state want a better quality of life, they need to elect legislators who know the hardships of today's working environment. However, those people can't afford to serve, and nothing changes. "
Wyo Boy wrote on Dec 25, 2008 3:24 PM:
eddie wrote on Dec 25, 2008 11:32 PM:
Hal wrote on Dec 26, 2008 12:00 PM:
There is no end to the selfishness of this corrupt, arrogant "republican controlled" legislature. Zwonitzer is an excellent example of the piggishness of the state's republican legislature. Any attempt to give this benefit to themselves and/or to "retired former legislators" should be met with huge resistance from the people in this state.
Probably 30% of the people in Wyoming are living without any health insurance benefits because their employer does not provide any such benefits, or these people absolutely cannot afford any health insurance plan. Now these selfish, thoughtless, pigs want these same taxpayers and residents to pay for THEIR FAMILIES FULL HEALTH, OPTICAL AND DENTAL BENEFITS!!!!!! No way is this going to happen. YOU ARE A PART TIME LEGISLATURE!!!! No one who works PART TIME in the private sector is eligible for any health care benefits and every member of the state legislature knows this including Zwonitzer and Ken Esquibel.
Wyoming desperately needs to elect all new independent legislators in the 2010 elections. No more voting for anyone affiliated with any political party. Definitely vote out anyone who attempts to dip into the public trough more than they already have. "Life Insurance too?!!??"
"Oh baby, you are so out of touch and so selfish!!" Attract more "good" people to run for office?" You mean more greedy, selfish, self-serving, self-centered, thoughtless, opportunists who don't care about anyone but themselves and their families.
TELL YOU WHAT. YOU REPEAL THE RIGHT TO WORK LAW IN WYOMING, AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS, OK??? "
J.A.C wrote on Dec 26, 2008 6:11 PM:
//www.nrtw.org/c/wyrtwlaw.htm
I do agree with you on one point thou. Most of these people have insurance thru their employers or retirement packages and this is just another unneeded expense we the people dont need rght now. "
Hal S. wrote on Dec 26, 2008 7:20 PM:
I am entitled to identify you as an anti-union zealot, since after all you quite incorrectly labeled me a liberal, whatever that is. Can you define a liberal J.A.C.? Perhaps you are an employer or a member of the management team where ever you are employed, and that is just fine. Your point of view about unions represents only about 30% of the working citizens point of view in this state today. Most working people in Wyoming have either a positive opinion about unions, or they have a neutral position on the subject.
No confusion here J.A.C., a right to work law is in fact a law designed to keep unions out, so employers can treat their employees anyway they want to. That is what a right to work law really is. That is what a right to work law really does. People like you must really think the working people are stupid, and that they don't know exactly what a right to work law has done to their lives. Believe me they are not stupid, they know just how unfairly the working person is treated in right to work states. The whole phrase "right to work" is a huge lie. A gigantic misrepresentation of what right to work laws really do. They were written by big business people with the full intention of keeping the working people under their thumbs.
In the near future it would be very much to the working person's advantage to elect independent candidates whose first priority is to legislate job security and employment fairness for the working person in our state. This is coming J.A.C., you and your ilk are rapidly becoming obsolete, even in "right to work" Wyoming. "
DAKOTA wrote on Dec 27, 2008 6:43 AM:
WyoTransplant wrote on Dec 27, 2008 10:04 AM:
GaryD wrote on Dec 27, 2008 10:08 AM:
J.A.C wrote on Dec 27, 2008 12:53 PM:
CHAPTER 7 - LABOR UNIONS; DISPUTES AND INJUNCTIONS; RIGHT TO WORK
27-7-101.� Policy of state; organized labor permitted.
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state of Wyoming that workers have the right to organize for the purpose of protecting the freedom of labor, and of bargaining collectively with employers of labor for acceptable terms and conditions of employment, and that in the exercise of the aforesaid rights, workers should be free from the interference, restraint or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents in any concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection.
Man your right. This is clearly anti - Union. I dont believe I was so blinded by the lies of this "Republican Hate Machine!! " "
hmmm wrote on Dec 27, 2008 1:42 PM:
Home wrote on Dec 29, 2008 3:37 PM:
People of Wyoming can speak for themselves and don’t need organizers to do their talking or thinking for them, this I’m sure of JACK! "
Hal S. wrote on Dec 29, 2008 4:50 PM:
J.A.C wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:49 AM:
Now then that law may be out there somewhere. who knows they add stuff to bills all the time. take a look at this. It's the appropreations bill for the department of defense for year ending Sep. 2008, Look at the amendments section. (S.AMDT.3774) and the text to amendments. Notice the "Domestic Pet Turtles Market Access" section?
//thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR04156:
Now tell me what does this have to do with the department of defense? 7 Pages of BS!! ( Makes you wonder if were really spending 10 billion a month in iraq? Thats what this is the budget for our military)
So Hal Prove me wrong show me the law( Not an opinion) you Know all about. "
Big Horn Basin wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:46 AM:
Home wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:37 AM:
By the way your right, I am for the employer and very proud of it. Having served twenty years in the military I strongly support the employer and the country. Employers are part of the backbone of this country.
P.S. When you strangle something for long enough you take the life right out of it and eventually it dies. Kind of like the unions have done to the three industries I’ve already mentioned. "
Little Ronnie wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:47 AM:
Hey wait a minute wrote on Dec 31, 2008 4:14 PM:
I bet you can find articles in the newspaper if you look hard enough. I don't need to look it up, I remember it. "
Little Ronnie wrote on Dec 31, 2008 4:47 PM:
Hal S. wrote on Dec 31, 2008 5:58 PM:
The simple facts are, most working people in America would have terrible working conditions, poor wages and little or no benefits if business owners (employers) or their management minions had their way. The unions are the only reason most people in America have any kind of decent wages or benefits. The existence of unions is what has made employers have to pay their employees wages that are reasonably commensurate with union shop wages, along with providing benefits that are also roughly equivalent to union benefits. For those of you who do not think this is the case, just imagine what your employer would pay you if there was no competitive union wage and benefit scale that the non-union employers have to compete with. If they are not pretty close to the union's pay and benefit scale, then they run the risk of their employees voting in a union. So you see, even those working in non-unions shops are benefiting from the existence of unions.
Some people think they do not need a union to speak for them, well that may be true, and that is fine, but all working people need the existence of unions or their employers would take terrible slave labor advantage of them. Right to work laws were brought into existence, much at the behest of employers and business owners in order to allow people to work in their companies without joining a union or paying any union dues. The whole purpose of course is to deny unions memberships and dues money, thereby hoping to break the unions so when they are no longer a viable source of economic competitive strength for the working people, these same business owners (employers) can then completely enslave the working person. Make no mistake about it, right to work laws exist for the sole purpose of breaking unions. Once the unions are broken and gone, then every working person in America will be a complete slave in chains with no dignity of any kind whatsoever. These are the facts that JAC, Home and Big Horn Basin choose to ignore and refuse to accept as the truth about American employment. As I said before, these are probably all the same person. Someone who has nothing but contempt for the working person. These are either employers, or winged management monkeys.
"Hmmm" said there are laws regarding how employees are treated, well "Hmmm" name one here in Wyoming that does anything to protect the working person from unfair treatment by his or her employer. Ask the state supreme court if there is any law in Wyoming that provides any substantial protection for Wyoming workers from unfair treatment by their employer, other than the child labor laws. "Home", the only bitter thoughts I harbor, are those for employers that have done so much to destroy a reasonably decent standard of living for their employees. "Big Horn Basin", don't make things up or exaggerate things to make some ignorant point. Btw just because there are a few news media articles about something doesn't mean it is true, or accurately reported.
The unions did not strangle the auto makers. Poor management decisions about marketing, and the future of low mpg large vehicles along with gigantic multi-million dollar executive and management salaries, benefits and golden parachutes is what devastated the big auto makers. The stories about $70.00 and hour wages are total lies. Most UAW members were paid between $23.00 and $35.00 an hour, depending upon their seniority (most in the upper hourly wage range have been on the job for over 28 years), and shift differentials. That is far less than the average energy/oilfield employee is getting in Wyoming at the present time. What most Wyoming workers need is the presence of more union representation in our state. Then maybe people working any job that is not energy/oilfield related might earn a decent wage and have health benefits for themselves and their families. For those employers who are already providing these things on a good scale, good for you, probably your employees do not need a union. For all the other employers in Wyoming who are not providing these things to their employees on a good scale, your employees should organize and join a union for collective bargaining. Happy New Year. "
Hey wait a minute wrote on Dec 31, 2008 8:41 PM:
Hey wait a minute wrote on Jan 1, 2009 12:24 AM:
Submit a Comment