apart from any group insurance policy they are not insurance policies and as we understand the word premium notifying me of this charge the membership fee is  with respect to active devotees the county contributes all or substantially all of the force of membership or changers so i can't tell you today that it's been a level contribution but the active deputy gets coverage  benefits through a group insurance policy which they provide health benefits through other than they are of insurance  required premium in the case of continuing coverage because as we use the language a premium doesn't apply these are not premiums they redefine require a premium to be that portion of the cost of group insurance policy now that's the definition unfortunately thankfully of the legislature  in the second portion of the statute was to harmonize those counties or municipalities which did not use group insurance with the first portion the county is not bound by the same rules as the group in charge you are saying to us the county may discriminate will plow on the one side and i hear o on the other and then driving the two horses in different direction it would have been better had they chosen to set these things up separately but they did not one vehicle off the ship rose i believe that the only proper reading sustains our position that any other reading let's the counting oh boy the nondiscriminatory provisions of the first portions are simply by adopting something other than the group i five when something else was happening in our country the adoption of cobra cobra was adopted in one nine hundred eighty five legislatures and congress were concerned about individuals losing their health insurance coverage for a variety of reasons and therefore around the state including she's been around the nation including in illinois the legislature and the and congress passed laws allowing employees if they lost coverage or of right reasons to continue insurance coverage a their own expense the statute in question here is one of a series of statutes adopted by the illinois legislature in eighty three eighty five the first statute try mention in my brief his three sixty seven half of the insurance all of these statutes are paid him identical except for the name of the employer the sixty seven f was a downstate fireman's policy statute and it provided as does the one before the court today that employees retire they may continue their health insurance plan coverage at their own expense and as mr hayes pointed out it didn't make any difference if that was the traditional indemnity health insurance carrier or that municipality shall be required by any provision of this section to pay any group insurance premium other than one negotiated in a collective bargaining agreement and if that weren't enough the statute goes on to say remember back in those days those were still fairly new ideas the legislature said have references to the required premium that the deputy used to pay and the employers not shall refer to that portion of the cost of such benefits which are not borne by the municipality either voluntarily or pursuant to the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement my friend mr hayes argues this he cause county has a collective bargaining agreement rich which the state of illinois by these other statutes are required to pay the premiums for the deputies when they retire and for their spouses this long as the spouses live and for their dependent children statute says nothing of the kind the statute says precisely the opposite right the case roughly six thousand dollars per year per employee for the rest of their lives when they retire when you read or if you have already read the legislative history you will see reference again and again to the legislature say payment by the employer of the employees premiums after retirement for the rest of his her life is mandatory that would render the word negotiation meaningless but there's another bizarre consequence to the argument that demonstrates that the legislature could not have intended according to mr hayes argument it's the existence of the collective bargaining agreement and the provision in the collective bargaining room for active employees which triggers an obligation to pay continuation premiums for retired employees but what result would obtain in the many many into local government that don't have collective bar premiums for its employees i submit that that is not merely a bizarre consequence it would be unconstitutional it would be punishing employees where they were so she writes violate the first amendment please not you employ were thirty five years you were hired the same is this other way you happen to have elected a traditional insurance therefore your father and there's a collective bargaining agreement that applied to you while working the employer is obligated to pay for you your premiums for the rest of your life but you employ hire the same day work the same amount of time get exactly the same work and the only state that relationship that you have no premiums paid by the employer therefore anyone who didn't belong to a union loses six thousand dollars a year tens of thousands of dollars of that over the course of his or her structure is the same exactly for both the retirees and the current workers the question is who pays for it and nothing in step three sixty seven page says the employer pays for it and three sixty seven makes very clear that the nothing in the statute also in fact mates to distinction which mr hayes argues to mr hayes is correct the legislature three sixty seven h of course it's part of the insurance code it's part of the great regulatory scheme of the insurance code and therefore the legislature was regulating insurance companies very under the statute it becomes clear from reading the legislature had an aha not regulated under the insurance code here or we have to make a different provision but that provision merely says one which mr hayes cited merely says that in respect to a premium was correct and i believe in the first instance it's applied to the deputy's individual coverage until the amount of the the applies to the spouses coverage or his dependence in either the share cars case nor in the current status are we dealing with dependent or was  stajan then goes on to define require premium and the reason of that's important is that required premium a supposed to the premium with a group policy is that that's what each one of those tommy said and that's what we said they are going for they are obligated to do but it is not the