dtb If 25% of your board of directors are the same between 2 separate companies as you put it, is it not obvious one will wash the others foot so to speak, no grasp of facts here. maybe there right in front of your nose.

So to continue with your inane analogy...if your last name was BP, you work in the BP store, and do its banking, couldn't one reasonably assume your activities are tied together? Try again.

jv, and I live across the street from a gas station but BP doesn't own my house.
.
Hmm....Different building, different board, different company. jokers grasp of facts appears to be lacking.

dtb I beg to differ

From Representitive Kevin Petersons web site
March 4 2011 It is clear as well that WEA Trust and WEAC are essentially one entity with two names. WEAC’s President Mary Bell, Director Amy Johnson, and Director Suzanne Kahl all sit on the WEA Trust board. Furthermore, their offices reside at the same address in Madison.

Over charging the State 70 million dollars. Thank you again Governor Walker.

greatplain,

If the WEA trust is here to stay-how long can it support $70 Million annual revenue declines and continue to operate? At some point the trust will run out of money to exist, correct?

greatplain stated "...And it signals what private insurers don't want...a non-profit company."
-
Ummm, there are many insurance companies that fall under non-profit laws. In the state of Washington the three largest are all non-profit. Using this to defend a non competitive slant for the WEA owned insurance company is pretty silly.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo...

Wow, the market at work. Who would have thought that school districts would freely choose to find more competitively priced insurance options if allowed?

The WEA trust will continue to lose out to more competitively priced services as long school districts have a choice. Now I am certain the dems running for governor have promised the WEA Trust that if elected the Democrat Gov will magically force school districts to pay higher than market rates-from a single source insurer called the WEA trust-remember this is about the children.......follow the campaign money....

Right dtb that's why the WEAC building is 20 yards from the WEA trust building.

The WEA Trust is here to stay. And it signals what private insurers don't want...a non-profit company. I hope it leads to socialized care, so we can get on with real capitalism, and not life/death issues that break families.

ACT-10 is deregulation, plain & simple. And what does deregulation do? It causes market crashes. We've had 2 major market crashes caused by the lack of regulation or deregulation. This is simply a way to funnel public monies into the pocket of the rich. For people like walker, it's to grease the wheels of rich companies to secure a job position when they leave office. The sad part is that with all the cuts to education that republicans have been making since Reagan, the American public is to stupid anymore to realize what they are allowing to happen. The lack of regulations will destroy this country.

The costs will rise substantially now that for-profit companies are in the game. To think that there will be no collusion between them is foolish.

Well said Rich

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/1...

joker, WEA Trust is a seperate corporation from WEAC.

The term "not for profit" implies that an organization is some sort of charity. Mercy Health Systems is a "non profit". Neither Mercy or WEA are charities. They are still a business. That are subject to business success just like anyone else. Employees and Directors may still be paid high salaries and the organization could throw away their revenue in an inefficient manner. Their high premiums along with the "non profit" declaration doesn't calculate. If they want to be in business they must compete and provide value. The taxpayers don't need to be bailing out yet another poorly managed enterprise.

This headline will make the haters happy.
.
For all those who keep spouting that local unions were forcing districts to insure with WEA, then why is it that 2/3 of those didn't??
.
TDG, can you name districts and quote contract language to back up your "under threat of labor dispute" assertion? And what would that dispute be? Certainly not a strike.
.
"CROOKS gouging the taxpayers" - So what do you call for-profit insurers?????
.
I'll bet many districts never cared about apples to apples comparison; once they didn't have to bargain with teachers, they probably just went with the lowest cost and too bad for the employees if they had to switch doctors, had higher copays and deductibles, etc. shifting more cost to the employee.

Sleep on IT, maybe an original thought will come to you.

And who better to call it the bewitching hour then a .....

I see carlitosway has turned up...must be getting close to the bewitching hour.

Have a good evening.

I think someone has a burnt out bulb again.

And wislady BAILOUTS were you Bushes as to the Wall Street Gangstas@ Fedup....The only ones gouges the tax payers is your corporate GOP backed millionaires and you continue to Stand up for them You are actually the one of the posters that I look forward to your comments as they show me the ignorance and brainwashed people still out there. OBAMA 2012

Wislady, glad to see that you got your cut and pasties on, now how about an original thought about these smartest businessmen running this country? If your not capable of original thought, just post a link!

@roadmaster,
then why are their revenues down $70,000,000?
the story says "cost is a key factor."
apparently, when given the choice of wea apples vs. other carriers' apples, those who could, switched.

The reason they moved away from WEA was political. In most cases they saved money with the new policies by reducing the coverage. When they did an "apples to apples" comparison the WEA plans were still a good choice. Many districts have chosen to stay with WEA.

@thatdeadguy,
you are 100% correct. it was the unions who forced school districts to purchase insurance from wea.
that's why when collective bargaining was dismantled, school districts were able to actually shop for better rates. thanks for posting.
********
and for those who posted that wea was the "most cost efficient choice," i would ask, why then when school districts were able to move away from wea, they did? just wonderin'

Another story for you, Lightkeeper.

Obama Tops GOP Candidates in Wall Street Donations

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/20/h...

Lightkeeper

Glad you brought that up....which explains the following article.

Obama 2012 Campaign Receives More Wall Street Donations Than All GOP Candidates Combined

http://patdollard.com/2011/10/obama-rece...

You got to hand it to those wall street businessmen,the us taxpayers bail them out, they give themselves a bonus with our money, cause they feel that they are entitled to it for doing such a good job? The middle class taxpayer pays 26% on their income and the wall street businessman pays on average 15% on theirs. Boy I guess those public unions sure could learn a trick or two from these businessmen!

The only reason for the loss was all the money they poured into recalling Walker

Wislady, isn't it intriguing that you would mention the word bailout, you do know that the largest taxpayer bailout ever was wall street. No union personal involved, just the smartest bussinessmen in the world!

"WEA insurance has never been forced upon everyone. It was always a choice."

It was forced upon many school districts by the teachers unions. Contracts often specified WEA under threat of a labor dispute.

What the hell is a breaf F'dup?

bailout?

"How can a "not-for-profit" report a loss? Can a "not-for-profit" report a gain?"

---

Ummm...this isn't too hard. When their expenses exceed their revenue, they have an operating loss - just like any other entity. They can also have a "gain", but they are required to re-invest that gain into the business or apply it to increase customer service - or even to reduce the next year's premiums.

Some school districts such as Beloit and Janesville never had WEA insurance. But for many (mostly rural) districts WEA was the most cost efficient choice.

How can a "not-for-profit" report a loss? Can a "not-for-profit" report a gain?

WEA insurance has never been forced upon everyone. It was always a choice. There are schools who haven't had WEA insurance for At least ten years.

rocket21, in case they didn't teach you this in school, "non-profit" means that the entity does not have owners. All revenue returns to operations.
.
It is true that once they were no longer bound to honor contracts, some school districts chose to alter their insurance, in many cases reducing coverage and getting a lower rate. Of course, in many cases they are now being serviced by a for-profit insurer, which means that no matter what, some of what they pay in rates goes back to enrich somebody somewhere. That's pretty much what Scott Walker believes is right: somebody somewhere getting rich off the public dime.