changes implemented by the city in two thousand and one actually were beneficial or per preferential relative between the active in retirement please for individual of the coining the only one asserted by the plaintiffs in this pending before this court today is whether novel's claim changes that were implemented by the city of joy violated article thirteen section five of the illinois essentially war damages for the city of joy of it not to impose the changes as it is to these particular plaintiffs in that we've been following notice of appeal so this is a constitutional case i would say that some elements of the case they are involved issues of first impression in a limo certainly in their district but not completely there are there have been eleven cases the decided by the on the supreme court involving the basis for our contention that the or committed reversible error is that article thirty five simply does not however health insurance it was intended to be in operates as a pension benefit protection clause but it was never it isn't in there's never been a file to cover other employment benefits such as health insurance and our starting point in the expressed language of the pension protection clause and the only employment benefit mention in that clause is a pension that has no reference whatsoever to health insurance so the express language of thirteen five gives no suggestion or no support for the concept that it would cover other employment benefits of the benefits that spring from membership several illinois supreme court cases that have considered the scope of article thirteen section five the first case there really dealt with the pension vote aspect being a thirteen five applied in springfield which was a seventy four decision you had the plaintiffs certainly claiming that their ultimate pension benefit the amount of money did we get from their pension system was going to be reduced by in this fall or has that force firefighters and police officers retired before they would maximize their pension that is and as i stated in my brief i can think of nothing more institutional more than a civil service services them and certainly one that has a mandatory retirement age if any corps is going to find that some other municipal operation or  foldit now here in this case there is no pleading or evidence that the provisions cited by the circuit court were intended by the general assembly to take those matters and constitutionalized them and here's what the court looked at this is extremely or in my opinion and perhaps the heart of the case because certainly thirty five came into this world as present protection plan and now the circuit court is plan after they leave but they have to do so on the scene perms as the active employees will pay the cork looked at that the statute said aha the general assembly provided continues prevalence all health insurance plans are now subject to article thirty five but when you look at the continuous growth was substituted service code it expressed to states that the retirees are to pay the same premium as that charge to the active employees from that the circuit court says health insurance benefits have been in fall into article thirty five i would say only to the extent if that's true at all which we disagree with perhaps they have described where they are questionably increased cost to the plan in terms of their health insurance coverage under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement that was effect on the date of system of the pension system of any of the various pension articles contained in the pension of well isn't this really boils down to what is a concept of included in that calculation so benefits is much more than just the amount of patients that if you look at the integration of the pension cooperations which again i it's specifically said other doctors and then in subsequent sections it makes that provision which he says has characterized her as we characterize it as just being an administrative change in the medical insurance from the retirement days would be impermissible when we're talking about the benefit for the retiree yes  court in terms of allowing the city to make these kinds of adjustments whatever they want is it gives them the power hilde basically visually the the coverage that benefits the retired made  various and article thirty five in a way that was never intended by the framers is not consistent with its expressed language it's not consistent with the case law that's been decided and i started with dell but i can point letter holding at war at least statement in all the cases that the supreme court has considered in when you take that statement and then try to reconcile that with the relief sought in this case in the theory of the case here we're not talking about a pension i'm sorry there may be other legal theories that support that cause of action they have a good while they're not constitutional they're beyond the scope of their five and that's the exact comment but the new york co of the pension protection clause and when the lippman court dealt with was it this exact issue is health insurance within the scope of protection of this constitutional provision the living court said no and they said health insurance is important health insurance may be protected by a contract or by a statute but it's been protected by the pension protection clause the constitution only goes so far it does not cover every potential item of property or benefit that an sense we also know that peter's decision in one thousand seventy four found that springfield civil service system is the current system so yes so this health insurance plan is not a retirement system or pension plan than any benefit which springs from our health insurance plan is not within the scope of protection of thirty five that only protest benefits which come from pension plans your hon health insurance authority is not for thirty five writes there's a clear legislative intent that health insurance is yon thirty five now the that the plaintiffs in this case are not part of that type will pension plan they're part of the down state police and fire which does not have authority to offer substantive health insurance benefits they do not there was no legislative need to insert a thirteen five disclaimer in advance the police and fire plan is because they don't provide health