* Disclaimer - If ad is a click thru and you are having problems please click on link to download latest version of flash player.Flash Player

ON THE WEBSITE:

• THE TICKET: Showtimes, reviews, games & more
• DINING GUIDE:Your source for T&D Region restaurants
• DOWN ON THE FARM: News, videos and more
• PET CORNER: Your home for news and PET IDOL
Advanced Search
You are not logged in. | Login | Register

Log in to TheTandD.com

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 

S.C.'s higher insurance fee for smokers gets cloudy

By SEANNA ADCOX, The Associated PressThursday, August 21, 2008

1 comment(s) | Default | Large

COLUMBIA, S.C. - South Carolina’s governor, comptroller general and top legislators thought they voted last week on a proposal to raise health insurance by $25 per month for state employees who smoke.

As members of the Budget and Control Board, they hashed over the plan, debated the date it would go into effect and passed it on a 3-2 vote.

But now, the board’s staff has decided the lawmakers didn’t actually approve a new price tag for smokers, leaving some of the state’s most powerful officials — who usually don’t agree on much — scratching their heads in unison.

“It’s extremely bizarre,” said Scott English, chief of staff for Gov. Mark Sanford. “These are not guys who typically see eye to eye, and they’re all of the same mind.”

At issue is the decision by the budget oversight board to raise insurance rates for an estimated 58,600 state employees and family members who smoke or chew tobacco, a move that would make South Carolina the eighth state to charge employees more if they or their spouses light up.

All five board members liked the idea of a monthly $25 surcharge but disagreed on how quickly to implement it. They argued over a Jan. 1, 2010, start date.

There were some other questions with the plan, such as how employees would prove they don’t smoke, the penalties for lying, and whether the extra $25 charge for tobacco users conformed with federal law.

Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman took part by phone.

“It seems to me there’s a lot of unknowns here,” he chimed in, according to a recording of the meeting. “I’d like to see the board to take action to get the legal staff, to get whomever involved, an opportunity to work through the things we’ve heard this morning and the board to go ahead and implement this Jan. 1, 2010.”

The vote was taken, with the governor and Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom opposed because they wanted the fee in place sooner. Sanford and other officials spoke to media outlets about the decision, which got a mixed reaction from state workers and front-page headlines around South Carolina.

But when board secretary Delbert Singleton transcribed a recording of the meeting, he decided that when Leatherman said “go ahead and implement this,” he didn’t repeat adding the $25 fee, meaning the amount was not approved.

Board spokesman Mike Sponhour said this week that Singleton spoke with staff of members of the board who agreed with his assessment, and said that as far as government staff is concerned, the board still must vote on how much to charge. He added that the amount could very well be $25.

“Board meetings are characterized by open and free-wheeling discussions. It’s not uncommon for board meetings, afterward, to have to go back and clarify what actions were taken,” Sponhour said.

But four of the elected officials who comprise the board told The Associated Press they believed the fee was part of the vote. Treasurer Converse Chellis is in Maine at a conference and did not return a message left seeking comment. His spokesman said he initially believed the vote included the fee, but in a later call to the AP — after he said he consulted the recording — the spokesman said it did not.

Asked this week, Leatherman said his motion was made with the intent of adding the fee. Eckstrom and House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Cooper seemed surprised there was any confusion at all.

“The agreement was staff was going to deal with implementation details and get back to the board, but there was no question on whether to have a surcharge, and the only number I heard referred to was $25,” Eckstrom said. “My intention was the surcharge would be $25, based on the practice of other states.”

As governor, Sanford is chairman of the budget board, and his spokesman said Thursday that “unelected bureaucrats” shouldn’t be able to alter a vote taken by the officials.

“The bottom line is, this is a crazy way for government to run. After an action is taken, there shouldn’t be questions a week after the fact on what the action was or wasn’t,” said spokesman Joel Sawyer.

 
1 comment(s)
The following comments are reader submitted. They do not represent the views of The T&D or Lee Enterprises.

gone fishing wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:51 PM:

" When are they voting on additional cost for people who drink booze? They should be penalized the same or more because they are a burden not only to the medical insurance company but also to the vehicle insurance companies. I am tired of paying for these idiots who drink and drive and kill innocent people. "



» Post a comment Thanks for your comment! Once approved, your comment will appear on the site.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here To Sign in

Click here to get an account
it's free and quick
Please note: The Times and Democrat provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.

More News