We've had some time to think over Wednesday's budget news ("Schwarzenegger urges health care shift for state workers") and we have some questions.
How exactly would the state ( specifically DPA, according to two sources familiar with the plan) save money by taking over state employee health care insurance?
Do the estimated savings include the administrative costs of shifting information from CalPERS to a state agency?
What impact would splitting off 567,000 state workers and their families have on future health care costs for cities, counties and other public agencies that would continue to get their insurance through the fund?
Would state retirees' health insurance leave CalPERS, too? (If so, that would bring the total headcount switched from CalPERS to nearly 800,000 and leave CalPERS with about 500,000.)
The governor has representation on CalPERS' board, specifically DPA Dirctor Dave Gilb. Has Gilb voiced concern about CalPERS' health insurance costs? How did he vote on the last premium increase? Did he voice any concern that CalPERS should have done better?
Why do this at all, especially when other parts of the budget extoll the virtues of consolidation and streamlining to save money? Is there another agenda behind the governor's proposal?


The Author
About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.