Gov. Haley Barbour has something in common with Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher: Both are attempting to cut costs by making state employees pay a premium for health insurance.

The similarities are striking between the two situations, down to the men themselves. Barbour is only the second Republican governor since Reconstruction whose key political adversary is a populist Democrat who leads the legislative House. In Kentucky, Fletcher is the first Republican governor in more than three decades whose key political adversary is also a populist Democrat who leads the legislative House.

In Kentucky, some 226,000 employees and retired employees benefit from free health insurance. In Mississippi, that number is approximately 122,256.

Democrats in both states are lining up in opposition to the idea of having state employees share in the burden of rising insurance costs.

In Kentucky, opponents argue that free health insurance is a reward for people who choose to serve their state. Kentucky Rep. Derrick Graham, D-Frankfort, told The (Louisville) Courier-Journal, &8220;(Free health insurance) was the one thing that attracted people into coming and serving in state government … It wasn’t the salary.&8221;

In Mississippi, legislators have fiercely protected state employees as some sort of sacred cow. Perhaps here in Mississippi the sentiment is the same, that free health insurance is just that extra little bonus that lures workers to state jobs. But more accurately in Mississippi &045; as is most likely the case in Kentucky &045; state employees will be protected at all costs because state employee lobbying groups produce large sums of campaign contributions for their friends and splitting headaches for their enemies.

The fact is that only 10 of the 50 states in our great Union offer free health insurance to state employees. Many states have followed suit with the private sector, where businesses have been forced to pass the cost of health care on to their employees.

Sure, free health insurance is an admirable thing to offer any employee, but this debate should be about the state as a whole and not just a handful of its citizenry.

According to the last Census, nearly 2.9 million people made Mississippi their home. That means state employees make up only approximately 4 percent of the state’s population.

How in the world can legislators honestly say that making 4 percent of our state’s population pay for health insurance and thus saving the state some $54 million by the governor’s estimate is less important than preserving an insurance plan that is headed for larger and larger deficits in years to come? Whatever happened to the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few?

Using Barbour’s estimate of saving $54 million through state employee insurance premiums, the average per-employee cost would be in the neighborhood of $35 per month. That’s not bad for health insurance, especially compared to what is charged in the private sector.

Still, opponents of the plan make a good argument when they point to the low wages the state pays for some jobs. When you consider making the low-end state employees pay $35 per month, then you talk about taking away $420 a year from someone who doesn’t even make $10,000 a year. For people trying to raise children and support a family on minimal wages, not having to pay for health insurance &045; or having to pay very little &045; is a godsend.

That’s why Fletcher over in Kentucky has a plan that would relate health insurance premiums for state employees to their pay scale. While the average employee would pay from $50 to $70 per month, an entry level food-service worker &045; one of the lowest paying state jobs in Kentucky &045; would pay only $11 per month.

In Mississippi, such a plan should have lower average premiums because the savings sought here are lower than those sought in Kentucky.

But the principle is the same: Do not put the amenities of state employees above the necessities of the state as a whole.

Sam R. Hall

can be reached by

e-mail to

shall@sctonline.net

.