►
From YouTube: Committee on Government Operations on May 9, 2017
Description
Docket #0135- An Act concerning Insurance Benefits for Surviving Spouses
A
It's
a
hearing
on
an
order
approving
us
petition
for
a
special
law
regarding
an
act
concerning
insurance
benefits
for
surviving
spouses,
and
we
have
joined
here
by
my
colleagues
to
animal
who
got
here
first,
so
they're
any
ones
claiming
they
got
here
first.
So
in
order
of
how
they
arrived,
my
colleague
to
my
left,
the
City
Council
Tim
McCarthy,
my
colleague
to
my
right,
the
City
Council
Matt
O'malley,
and
then
my
City
Council
to
my
far
left.
A
My
colleague
is
City
Council
at
large
and
he
says
be
George,
and
this
matter
was
sponsored
by
me
and
referred
to
the
Committee
on
government
operations
back
on
January
the
11th.
This
would
amend
Mass
General
Laws,
so
that
surviving
spouses
do
not
wait
to
remarry
to
have
access
to
health
insurance
through
the
city
of
Boston
and
joining
us
today.
A
Representing
firefighters
is
local
718
president
rich
Paris,
and
also
joining
him
from
local
719
is
Bob
TD
and
Mark
Riley,
and
we're
also
joined
by
Dave
Sweeney
who's,
the
CFO
for
the
city
of
Boston,
and
so
just
to
maybe
get
right
into
it.
Maybe
just
a
quick
snapshot
from
local
718
for
the
firefighters
to
sort
of
why
this
issue
is
important.
Why
we're
here
and
then
we'll
go
right
to
Dave
Sweeney
with
respect
to
sort
of
any
cost-benefit
analysis
into
a
number
of
individuals
that
could
benefit
from
this
legislation?
A
B
Thank
you.
Mr.
chairman
councillors,
this
is
a
been
a
healthy
at
home,
little
petition
that
we've
been
working
on
for
a
while
and
so
prior
to
July
2000,
any
surviving
spouse
who
we
marry
lost
his
or
her
his
pension,
for
example,
the
nine
firefighters
we
lost
in
the
hotel,
Vaughn
dome
basically
had
to
couldn't
remarry
or
they
would
have
lost
their
pension
in
their
health
care
and,
as
JJ
would
say
how
you
tell
your
kids
were
to
live
in
sin.
B
You
know
and
a
lot
of
those
firefighters,
two
of
them
did
get
remarried
out
of
the
van
dawn
with
this
two
or
three
to
the
Beckwith
in
Boucher,
and
so
what
happened
is.
Is
they
they
repealed
it
by
the
legislators?
July
1st
2000
anybody
got
remarried
got
their
pension,
not
retroactive,
but
just
as
that
day,
and
it
was
a
big
win.
So,
for
example,
if
any
of
the
guys
dies
of
cancer,
this
spouse
could
get
me
married.
B
Okay,
she
kept
the
pension
so
now,
all
of
a
sudden
that
health
care
wasn't
included
in
that,
and
that
was
brought
up
to
our
attention
by
a
couple
of
spouses
that
came
down
the
Union
Hall.
They
were
very
happy
about.
You
know,
keeping
the
attention
but
their
health
care,
and
a
lot
of
these
is
it
happens
to
this
day,
where
a
firefighter
a
young
firefighter
dies
with
cancer.
He's
an
active
member,
his
wife
and
kids
still
don't
have
health
care.
She
remarries,
but
she
keeps
the
pension.
A
perfect
example
is
Christian
Walsh
she's.
B
B
So
that's
why
we're
here
today
in
this
form
on
members,
is
not
many
that
are
involved
and
I
just
feel
that
it
would
take
care
of
the
spouses
in
in
the
kids
and
the
family
in
his
just
that
trying
to
think
of
questions
coming
up.
If
she
be
married
and
has
three
kids
and
remarried,
someone
that
has
health
insurance
and
he
has
like
the
Brady
Bunch
says,
and
it
the
Brady
Bunch
isn't
covered
just
she
and
the
three
kids
would
be
covered.
So
little.
A
A
Those
two
children,
their
children,
from
the
marriage
till
the
age
of
18
18,
and
then
the
surviving
spouse
continues
with
that
coverage.
Filters
are
her
death
exactly
so
there
was
sort
of
a
so.
There
was
a
punitive
mechanism
in
by
which
a
spouse
who
chose
to
remarry
or
find
a
life
partner
and
or
a
father
or
a
mother
for
existing
children.
They
would
choose
not
to
marry
for
fear
of
losing
a
benefit
which
was
the
health
benefit
for
them,
or
their
kids
right.
A
It
so
we
can
you
shift
over
to
today's
Sweeney
from
the
CFO,
so
I
sure
you've
done
some
science
a
little
math
behind
this
and
then
one
of
the
sort
of
allude
to
whether
or
not
it
would
apply
and
over
here,
dealing
with
spouses
of
firefighters
that
have
died
in
line
of
duty
or
have
been
killed
in
line
of
duty
or
died
because
of
duty
related
activities
around
hot
and
lung
in
cancer.
But
does
this
apply
to
firefighters
and
other
city?
Employees?
A
C
C
We
don't
have
perfect
information
about
the
number
of
people
who
would
be
made
eligible
for
health
insurance
under
this
bill
because
we
do
not
know
the
exact
number
of
surviving
spouses
who
would
return
to
city
health
insurance,
as
was
as
was
mentioned,
or
also,
scenarios
in
which
surviving
spouses
remarry
and
utilize,
their
own
health,
insurer
insurance
or
their
their
new
spouse's
health,
insurance
or
government
health
insurance,
because
they're
retired,
or
something
like
that.
So
it's
very
difficult
to
predict
the
behavior
that
this
would
induce.
C
But
we
know
that
at
a
minimum
from
what
we've
been
told
by
local
718,
there
at
least
a
handful
affected
of
affected
widows
who
are
currently
in
this
situation
based
on
them,
having
had
their
pension
eligibility
restored
in
2000
who
remain
in
the
city's
pension
system,
but
just
to
give
a
general
sense.
It
costs
about
65
to
66
hundred
dollars
on
average
for
surviving
spouses
and
their
families
for
health
insurance.
C
This
universe,
even
even
under
the
broadest
interpretation
of
the
language
in
front
of
you,
the
maximum
universe,
would
probably
be
about
a
hundred
people,
and
if
we
were
to
clarify
that
this
were
in
the
line
of
duty
eligible
employees,
spouses
only
that
number
would
probably
shrink
significantly
so
so
just
to
clarify.
In
a
nutshell,
the
administration
is
very
supportive
of
what
we
believe
the
intent
to
be.
C
A
Be
great
if
I
just
asked
that
Christine
O'donnell
who's
so
for
the
City
Council
shoot
can
be
included
in
the
horse
and
then
just
shifting
mark.
So
this
normal
petition
we're
dealing
with
Menelaus
32
B,
which
is
9c
and
9b.
So
two
days
twenties
point
C
deals
with
firefighters,
B.
What's
the
section
that
deals
with
what
are
the
other
sections?
One
ain't
no
deals
were
police.
One
deals
with
my
and
then
one
deals
with
regular
employees
right,
9
g
9g
would
be
Boston
police
officers.
9
C
is
Boston
firefighters.
B
B
A
But
not
the
healthy
portion,
so
we're
here
today
to
address
the
health
benefit
portion
of
it,
allowing
spouses,
particularly
those
that
don't
have
access
to
to
either
purchasing
their
own
or
having
or
haven't
remarried
by
Frankfort.
That
does
remember
some
that
doesn't
have
insurance.
So
so
that's
it
in
a
nutshell.
But
my
colleagues
any
questions
of
what.
D
B
C
E
Say
chairman,
thank
you
for
your
leadership
on
this.
I
obviously
support
it
wholeheartedly
and
thank
you
to
the
save
and
as
embarrassing,
your
team
for
your
eloquent
testimony
today.
It
seems
to
me
that
it's
obviously
a
no-brainer
to
support
the
remaining
spouses
of
our
heroes
who
were
killed
in
the
line
of
duty.
So
if
I
have
this
right,
mr.
chairman,
the
the
state
partially
repealed
the
pension
part,
but
the
state
health
portion
is
another.
E
B
Basically
looking
for
this,
and
then
it
could
go
up
to
the
state
level
down
the
road
once
they
find
out
that
you
know
it's
covered
here,
and
there
are
a
lot
of
spouses
out
there
that
you
know
what
Cisco
knows:
coaches
Connor
and
I
hate
bringing
names
up,
but
it's
the
truth.
Yeah
and
you
know,
Joe's
wife
is
young
and
she's
got
five
kids
yeah,
so
she
would
she'd
keep
the
pension
but
lose
the
medical
yeah.
You
know
that's.
E
C
E
C
Think
that's
what
we
want
to
clarify
in
terms
of
it
intent.
So
we
did
we
we
did
make
him
make
the
calculation
of
what
it
would
cost
in
the
interpretation
of
the
broadest
possible
universe
which
I
think
week
we
in
again
this
is
imperfect,
but
we
found
about
a
hundred
and
six
potential
surviving
spouses,
which
would
be
about
six
hundred
fifty
thousand
dollars
in
additional
annual
costs.
Obviously,
if
you
segmented
out
the
population
so
that
it
only
applied
to
two
police
or
fire
police
hand,
fire
than
that
would
be
much
smaller,
so
bless.
E
Okay
well
again,
I
think
if
we're
a
you
know
again,
this
chairman,
thank
you
for
your
leadership
on
this
I
think,
if
there's
the
opportunity
to
fix
this,
it
might
as
well
fix
it
for
everybody
and
recognizing
it's
such
a
rare
thing,
but
nevertheless
tragic
thing
that
we
want
to
show
our
support.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you
all
gentlemen,
Thank
You.
F
You
I
just
want
to
lend
my
voice
to
the
round
of
support
for
this
I
think
you
know,
as
a
parent
and
I
think
in
in
most
cases
we're
talking
about
a
surviving
mother
or
female
spouse
in
most
cases,
of
course,
in
course,
health
insurance
is
the
reason,
so
many
people
simply
go
to
work.
So
if
we
can
provide
that
for
our
surviving
spouses,
I
think
that's
an
incredible
gift.
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
I
grew
up
in
my
name
is
it
was
a
family,
a
wife
and
children
that
lost
their
dad
in
a
fire
and
the
mother
didn't
remarry,
because
she
had
so
all
these
small
children,
but
she
ended
up
finding
a
life
partner
but
still
didn't
remarry,
even
when
the
life
bynum,
because
she
would
have
lost
you
know
a
pension,
the
benefit
part
of
it.
So
it's
just
a
stigma
and
it's
it's
inappropriate
and
a
couple.
A
It's
you
know,
this
is
an
opportunity
here
to
make
it
right
with
respect
to
the
health
care
portion
of
it.
It
was
obviously
made
right,
17
years
ago,
of
the
State
House
for
the
pension
part
of
it,
but
it
makes
the
most
sense
and
then
to
counsel
Mally's
point
to
sue.
Is
that
and
even
councillor
McCarthy
we're
just
referencing?
It
he'll
speak
to
it
in
terms
of
just
make
sure
we're
valuing
all
of
our
city
employees.
Clearly
we
love
and
respect
a
firefighters,
but
we
also
love
and
respect
all
of
our
city.
A
D
D
Are
worth
it
as
well,
but
I
know
that,
because
of
the
cotton
long
issues
that
firemen
has
certainly
the
cancer
bill,
that's
going
to
give
a
bigger
scope,
a
broader
scope
for
for
you.
You
know
we'll
have
to
have
this
discussion
during
during
our
discussion
during
our
all
right
trying
to
stay
here.
Michael
here.
D
F
G
D
B
A
A
It's
up
on
the
books
that
eliminates
that
remarriage
penalty.
That's
the
important
piece
here
that
we're
trying
to
read
we're
trying
to
you
know
solve
an
injustice
here
as
it
pertains
and
eliminate
that
remarriage
penalty
for
spouses,
whose
husbands
or
wives
have
died
in
the
line
of
duty
I've
had
a
death
in
the
course
of
their
action.
A
In
your
instance,
a
little
different,
because
you
have
section
100,
section
100
pertains
to
you,
which
is
the
heart
lung
and
the
cancer
portion
of
your
benefits,
but
that
does
not
pertain
to
everybody
else
is
just
situation
where
there's
a
spouse
in
as
its
dealing
with
a
pension
because
of
a
line
of
duty
or
building
service
type
of
incident,
where
it's
probably
not
as
many
people
as
we
think,
but
it's
good
benefit.
They
have
an
and
to
do
away
with
the
remarriage
penalty.
A
So
with
that
said,
I
look
forward
to
having
to
reconvening
at
some
portion
and
that
will
conclude
this
hearing
on
docket
zero
one,
three
five:
a
hearing
in
order
approving
a
special
law
regarding
an
act
concerning
insurance
benefits
for
surviving
spouses,
the
Committee
on
get
my
operations
isn't
Puran.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.