If a health-care bill is finally passed by the federal government, it might change the cost of education.

When we in the teachers union sat down with the school district to negotiate a new contract, health insurance was usually the hottest button.

The union wanted to keep the deductible low, avoid contributions towards the payment of the premium and make sure benefits for members and retirees were not diminished.

The district wanted help in paying health-insurance premiums that kept going up, hoping to get concessions from the union rather than passing the increases on to taxpayers in the district.

Both sides were responding to a third party beyond their control: the rising cost of medical care and insurance.

But while we were batting ideas around, trying to come up with a plan that would satisfy the union and the district, I often wondered why we had to have such a conversation at all. Or, to put it another way, why was health insurance connected to employment? What's the benefit to society if some people who are employed have good insurance but can't afford insurance if they lose their job?

Why don't we fund universal health care the way we pay for fire departments, police departments, public parks and schools? Everyone pays taxes for these services, even though we don't all have fires, report crimes, go on picnics or have children in school.

And why hadn't America come up with a plan like other developed countries?

These aren't new questions, of course. Universal health care was part of Teddy Roosevelt's presidential campaign in 1912. He lost. We've seen presidents Harry Truman and Bill Clinton tackle the problem. They failed.

So employees and employers at the local level still wrangle over how to pay for health insurance, which costs more every year. An unintended consequence is that many taxpayers resent the health-insurance benefits provided to public employees, which are often better than in private industry. Instead of asking, "Why can't everyone have that benefit?" they ask, "Why should the public employees have that benefit?"

A BIGGER BITE
With bills emerging from the House of Representative and the Senate, however, everything might change. Since no bill has become law, it's premature to predict what the impact on school contracts would be. But if a new law provides universal health insurance, negotiations between unions and school districts will be very different.

According to the most recent data from the New York State Education Department, in 2006, the 680 New York school districts spent more than $4 billion on "hospital, medical and dental coverage for employees." That $4 billion is about 8 percent of the total expenditures on K-through-12 public education.

Among 27 North County public schools, however, the health costs take a bigger bite out of the budget, approximately 13 percent. In dollars, North Country schools spent more than $57 million for employee health insurance.

If we compare the cost of health insurance to the local tax levy (school revenue from local property owners) the results are more dramatic. Among our 27 schools, the proportion of health costs to local revenue goes from a high of 91 percent at Salmon River to a low of 12 percent at Keene Central.

It's worth noting that many North Country schools receive significant state aid, so the local revenue usually provides less than half of the total funding. Only nine of the districts generate most of their revenue locally.

No one knows what's going to happen regarding health care/insurance in America. But if a bill is passed that separates this benefit from a workers compensation package, negotiating contracts could be simpler because school districts won't be paying for health insurance.


Jerry McGovern, the Press-Republican's coordinator of Newspapers-in-Education, taught in New York state's public schools, and now teaches in the Communication Department of Plattsburgh State. He can be reached at gmcgovern@pressrepublican.com or 565-4126. This column is the opinion of the writer and not necessarily of this newspaper.