court looked to union health to prove the wisdom of the legislature's decision to grandfather munity for union health a moody that contrary to the opinion below extends to union health and other other all jurisdiction that the court has done before despite the lack of finality to this order and so the court does he have jurisdiction to address this order it's exercised jurisdiction and and we would submit an appropriate occasion for the court to exercise its authority where the trial court declared a state issued unconstitutional especially in this kind of situation where if  d union help would be excused from the lawsuit entirely there's a benefit not just to union health in that regard but also to the plaintiff for proceeding with political interest and of course serving the broader interest  we briefly raised that was an issue that was raised in the trial court and not addressed by the trial judge in this very lengthy opinion that the court's addressing quite frankly it's a little bit difficult to assess  what the trial court's ruling was on that particular issue the trial court held that the statute but i'm constitutional i'm its face as well as applied to union h declaration of unconstitutionally as union health even under the older version the statute although the trial court concluded in announcing it's really ruling it only addressed the met the amended version of the statute so we we agreed that if if we go back and if if this is struck and that is certainly a potential interpretation but i'm trying to address the entirety of the of the trial court's order so that's why we presented our arguments in this way which leads me to one more question so that's that's what my reading of it was and there's no other there's no other analysis of that issue than it's it's contained in the trial court's memorandum order and so these these entities just to give it just a small amount of background these entities came about in the one nine hundred fifty s as a result of health of union health and welfare fons goals to improve the benefits the health care benefits and other benefits but this particular legislation the health care benefits provided to union members in that context health and welfare funds would serve as a centralized entity to carry out the administration of benefits required by collective bargaining agreement and i think that that thought is particularly true and instead says not where there is it in a normal a large company that's the employer but many many smaller employers whose whose employees are members of the union and such as the the union that's involved in obtaining health here from union health and that's the service employees international the health and then going back to that time frame of the original families access to good quality health care and affordable price so the idea was not just to merely ride union members of health care insurance but to deliver the care and the general assembly was willing to help but it drew some very specific will and also act as an insurer which covers the cost and undertakes the risk for presiding here at union health facilities and also additional health services not delivered on site welfare for funds of several locals of the service employees international union and those entities continue to pratt provide for their needs of their muni and membership through the health care delivery model facilitated by the voluntary ac for he can craft more narrow benefit packages to meet the needs of the union as the health and welfare fund sicced sees fit so one example might be that particular local for example would want to provide a team physician services from the union health but perhaps perhaps a want to obtain hospital services inpatient services through some other arrangement and that is who's providing these services who is providing him within the the auspices of the voluntary plan my don't and who is it and who isn't according to the legislature in one nine hundred eighty eight was anchoring michael rizzolo i think charters should be that the court looked at and said are right i don't we don't are not the court the legislature we don't see the need to serially but we see these entities these three entities are still serving that role and they're still serving the  feel had a far under the emphasis a much greater and undue emphasis on the fact that human health also pitt has a certification to exercise h m o business but that's a far cry from saying that union health operates its business or operated that or operate that now in the same model as the two entities that the legislature sat with a second they're not they're not providing it the need that we envision for this legislation so they're not going to get immunity any more they're not going to to through this this business plan where they sort of stepped away from the union from providing their and extensively ever ties ever size ever ties themselves to employers and again we're not filling that nice role that union health bills so this that there's and the the way this came about in the trapdoor was here there's these i think it's about six cases where the first district considered the question initially in one of those cases and then there's two cases where there was extensive discussion about anchor an entity and in one of the cases the first and that's the only case where there was a finding of one constitutionally the american national anchor and that's true of any entity who has a certificate an h m o certificate and that's just not the case to the question and the legislature certainly put it out when it amended the immunity provision it certainly could have said well we don't want anybody who even has an h m o certificate to be able to have immunity but the legislature didn't say that the legislature looked at how this entity acrid and so i think the focus straight from  looking at how does this entity operate primarily you know health operates in this in this role serving union members as a voluntary plan it has a very limited operating within the auspices of the as a service health plans were peroration is pure speculation the only thing that cite is it was true of eight or so i guess that must be true of union health since immunity within this scheme within this legislative scheme mr grant just to be clear you know which two interviews are you referring to ater and michael rees in your brief you talked about sidney sidney coleman in there's a there's a i think a misunderstanding by the trial court that same voluntary statuses as your organization that's correct here and there was a misunderstanding and repeated by the plaintiff in this court that there are no other they somehow their immunity was removed leaving the union health as a class of one and i can't think of any reason why the trial court would make that assumption but i think it's an erroneous assumption but as it has it in the record that the trial court said that norm is in the record is the status of the three status if it is your honor it's in the record by way of mr curates affidavit there's a reference to the illinois department of insurance website which lists all three and misunderstanding was that when the legislature and there was a little bit of legislative debate on the record when the legislature talked about this issue it talked about the three entities michael release and union health but it spoke of those entities in the context of they were voluntary plans that also he had an h m o certificate sydney home and and your medical did not and perhaps that was sort of the genesis of starting you to develop a record so at one point you were saying that they were no longer they said he was no longer functioning as a voluntary plan did you show that did you present evidence to show that we really did it as if i evidence that you presented and that's how the factual issues were determined by the court is that right that's ok can tell us about the other two entities that counsel says exists in the same structure is that this union yet just to compare to this one versus three years it does it can get a little confusing and present one reason as union health service union medical is the name of the insurance and as having voluntary health chairs and mr garrett who is not only the executive director of human health but is also very familiar with the operations of the insurance that it improvidently granted review or they had appeal but there were two important things for purposes of the discussion here that i think should be noted by the court you cite the fact that the court specifically recognize existence of the helmet at least soviet that's big michel and the other important thing the second important thing about me michel this is and is that there was it just it did discuss union and it did discuss union health as as the one entity in the category of have the records here we don't have the records to discern whether it is continuing to operate in the schools to justice to his question is it continuing to operate it has a plan within the there is no basis for reaching the conclusion on this record that that union health doesn't continue to act in the form and function of a voluntary health care plan and  at end there there is the professional liability issue insurance and the says that this is supported by the record is something that union health purchased under the collective bargaining agreement that it has with the doctors and employees and that's one of the things that the doctors bargained for was to get union health to purchase said insurance and union health is also named insured but they have doesn't mean that doesn't there's no waiver based on that this established training unit there is no that the trial court to a conclusion from the from the purchase of insurance that it must mean that union health they said has led billing well i know one writer but i can guarantee that well for one thing that's one of one of the reasons that perhaps it does need it is to have to address situations like this particular situation but i believe that if the immunity provision was gone there was certainly be a dramatic  change and what that would cost in the event again you go to the bottom line of the economics of an entity that the legislature thought should be free of that bird and it would certainly affect as far as this business of of a sixty percent charge there's nothing in the record that says that the only there are there are two contracts in the record there's the collective bargaining agreement with the directors and there is an agreement with illinois to sign it and there's perfectly fine for union health to have contracts with hospitals to to obtain economically and that's the name of the game here for serving the subscribers who have this and shows that in the event that the health care or the health and welfare fund wants to obtain that coverage through union health they can do it in a in drive any negative to draw there and you know to come back to to the ultimate issue which is as a records establish this record support the notion that union health is working as a true traditional plan yes there is