notme wrote on Jan 8, 2008 4:27 PM:
" Doyle LIED. O'Malley himself has gone on record since then stating healthcare costs are going way up. Old Reid Magney even tried to defend O'Malley by saying the County's health insurance costs went up.
Doyle LIES, and then runs UNAPPOSED. You every wonder WHY he move to where he lives now?
"
North sider wrote on Jan 5, 2008 12:42 PM:
" Gay, Straight, health coverage, Fine! Just firm up the requirements a tad. Ask at least for joint owned titled or deeded property to reflect their commitment and love nest. "
Thank You La Crosse wrote on Apr 25, 2007 2:57 PM:
" I must say that I am proud of La Crosse. I might actually stay in this city. Thank you for caring enough about the LGBT community. "
dclxvi wrote on Apr 16, 2007 6:24 PM:
" Those exposing their secret desires of joining their pets, family members or multiple partners in a domestic partnership I believe are in the minority. Didn't LaCrosse defeat discrimination and bigotry by a majority vote against the marriage amendment? There will always be children/adults? like these that will demonstrate their fears, ignorance and inability to climb out of the mud. "
Poellinger race? wrote on Apr 16, 2007 9:43 AM:
" Mangage his campaign, parade, full page ads, kept the coals burning under the issues at hand. Jack walked into my office just days before the final to be able to file to ask me, within 48 hrs I had a shiny new Tractor Trailer, signage, volunteers, candy, parade, and had pledges for a small war chest of money for the campaign. You sir are uninformed, period! That is OK, because I have 4 steps on guys like you right out of the gates! I'll put my roofing up against your MBA. "
TO: Nestor wrote on Apr 16, 2007 9:36 AM:
" I do not listen to Rush. "
TO: re: put up or shut up wrote on Apr 16, 2007 9:35 AM:
" My e-mails and phone calls received say different. I will never forget one of my best days. I had the Mayor, the regional DOT boss, radio, both TV, State legislator, Senator, and a podium and a live mic ready to discuss an important issue. They all sat there and looked at each other who was to kick off and conduct the meeting? They looked for quite some time and became more and more puzzled. As nobody knew who called the meeting. I knew who called the meeting? You can guess. "legend in my mind', oh Yeah! "
re: put up or shut up wrote on Apr 13, 2007 6:06 PM:
" You are a legend in your own mind. Other than being a general nuisance, your efforts had no effect on the outcome of either the Poellinger or Le Grand races. Given that you have time to post obnoxious comments at all hours of the workday, it's a good thing my tax dollars aren't paying your salary. "
nestor wrote on Apr 13, 2007 1:29 PM:
" Thank you for supporting my position. Who was in office 20 years ago? What was the deficit? I'll bet my MBA against your roofing life any day of the week. You have no original ideas you just regurgitate neo-con propaganda ie Rush about the sky is always falling. Attack my reading skills, childish. Again with out changing the subject and attacking me personally, who was in office 20 years ago and what was the deficit? "
TO: To: Nester wrote on Apr 13, 2007 12:12 PM:
" I forgot, Ha...ha.... You only confirm I make a difference with an alternative view when you attack me, and the business I work for personally. "
Nestor wrote on Apr 13, 2007 12:06 PM:
" Like I said, there is proof that some posters reading skills are not up to snuff. I have insurance. Note: "I got resourceful". The funding shortages in many areas started as early as twenty years ago, before Clinotn or Bush. You sir are in denial, and truly ill informed. Your limp attempts to make a point are not missed by those on my side, and my feeling that they content is not missed for those on yours either. Remaining mute is not a sign. "
Nester wrote on Apr 13, 2007 11:21 AM:
" The government budget SURPLUS was estimated at 250 billion in 2000(Clinton/Gore) Now the government DEFICIT is estimated at 450 billion for 2007 (Bush/Cheney) Taxpayer money was returned to you because of the surplus. What do you think happens with a record breaking deficit. Decrease in benifits ie, school budgets, road improvements even increases in fishing licences to offset the lower taxes. You'll pay either way. Your bitter because you don't have insurance. that's all. I do and I'm happy. hahahahahahah "
legal nestor? wrote on Apr 13, 2007 10:47 AM:
" Nestor, those employees your talking about...they all legal? "
TO: to the ignorant replies wrote on Apr 13, 2007 9:41 AM:
" If your truly beleive that budget, pension, benefit shortfalls came to fruition after Bush and the war arrived you are ill informed or in denial. Call me at 782-6093, leave your e-mail, or stop and pick up a fact sheet/article at 1521 Caledonia during the day derived from a nuetral source that will inform you differently. The problems I have been hollering about predate the war and are widespread and verifiable. You are just plain ill informed, sorry. "
Nestor II wrote on Apr 13, 2007 9:22 AM:
" '401'? Again here we offered 401's with NW Mutual, and matched those contributions. Initially 2/3rds of our employees took advantage of that benefit. Although a fraction of the 10-21.5% as our local government entities. Instead, in the ballpark of 'average' private sector employers that 'offer', and are not used as comparables. When I had a bad long term bout with Menier's, and our Work Comp rate went to 42% I was forced to cash out my account. 42%, let me explain that as well. For a full time employee that makes $10 per hour to merely rake debris out of grass. We send $168 per week for premium, for one person, just for Comp. WI's Comp investigators do not leave the office, get it! Thats another issue. "
Nestor I- 'O' not E wrote on Apr 13, 2007 9:10 AM:
" I would be glad to, although it is none of your business, and is as relevant as your Iraq segway. Although let the education of the ignorant continue. I am 55, I lost my health insurance, and am in the same boat as many of my professional friends of same age group, they do not want you, and do not have to accept you. In my case they sealed the deal and plucked the excuse Menier's disease (in my case) as the guise to not accepting a middle age person. I got resourceful. We do offer health benefits, and I will inform you that 50% of our employees have taken advantage. (continued) "
to the ignorant replies wrote on Apr 13, 2007 7:32 AM:
" First, I did not refer to the UW System as private sector. There is a period after the private sector reference to Trane Co. Second, I said UW is "considering", no need for additonal comment. Third, Nester if you think the 1 bilion dollars a week being spent in Iraq or the Bush tax cuts have nothing to do with budget shortfalls concerning local municipalities you must have your head in the sand. Nester do you have Health/dental/401k for your employees? Just answer the question. "
This Opens a Pandora's Box wrote on Apr 13, 2007 12:17 AM:
" All of you posters have great comments on both sides of the issue. But; none of you have thought of the real problem this creates is that think of two unrelated, non partner males or females living in the same household because it saves them money. One of them could be a county/city employee wouldn't there roomate be entitled to this benefit even if they weren't sleeping together? I think they would be eligible to get this benefit. I lived in a multi person situation right after high school and we weren't gay but wouldn't this law have made me eligible for my roomates benefits? "
3% raises, 2% raises? wrote on Apr 12, 2007 10:45 PM:
" Holy smokes. What are we to believe. Let me ask you citizens out there? How many knew or read that O'Malley recently got a 4% step payment with his 3% raise? That's a 7% raise! To further my point, How many of you read the Superintendents base pay and did not know he received another inexplicable $10k along with his already 11.7% employer contribution for retirement? How many of you know the new Chief over at UWL is receiving almost another $20k for a housing allowance? On top of his already published base pay. Now we are to believe that this encompasses only two unions and only a few will take advantage. BTW what are your benefits out there in the private world? "
"Put up or shut up"? wrote on Apr 12, 2007 9:58 PM:
" Actually I do what I do best. Ask Mayor Poellinger or Roger Legrand. -Nestor "
TO: Robert wrote on Apr 12, 2007 9:54 PM:
" The best quote on this subject I heard was from a counselor earlier this year, attempting to defend illustrated blatant government/private worker benefit disparities. She repeated, "A rising tide raises all boats". I had to laugh because the opposite is actually true. In the last twenty years the gap has widened, easily measurable, and the growth has been steady and non-stop. Here is a quote from me, "It is not easy to tell a neighbor they are paid/benefited too much". Nestor "
TO: Ignorant is the right description for bigots wrote on Apr 12, 2007 9:44 PM:
" Well you are just plain wrong. Companies/Corps are filing and then resurfacing in record numbers walking away from benefit promises they made to their employees. Source- many forms, although you may use 'Frontline' as you will not be forced to test your already suspect reading skills. I might add that numbers of employees encompassed in fortune 500 companies represent a tiny percentage of total private workers in our Country. A truly small percentage of those other companies other than Fortune 500 offer domestic partner benefits. Your attack on me is just that, in addition is irrelevant and lacks courage behind an anonymous keyboard. "
Robert wrote on Apr 12, 2007 6:52 PM:
" My wife and I agree that it is not right for organized unions to have people who vote to have these benefits for unmarried couples, who are not intitilled to the same benefits as married couples...who have made a lifetime commitment to each other, as the Lord intended, it should be.......the whole United States government needs an overhaul on their thinking and should go back to the original precepts this government was created upon. MORALS..............which is something that is entirely missing in todays society. "
Ignorant is the right description for bigots wrote on Apr 12, 2007 6:07 PM:
" Over half of the Fortune 500 companies in this country offer domestic partner benefits, (not to mention the Disney Company). Most of them have for years. I must have missed the news about all of them going bankrupt in record numbers.
P.S. I love reading the comments from all the whiners who sit in the cheap seats and complain but don't run for office or even show up for meetings and who couldn't get themselves elected to office if they handed out hundred dollar bills, including (and especially) a certain roofer from the north side. Put up or shut up, preferably the latter. "
TO: to the ignorant wrote on Apr 12, 2007 4:19 PM:
" Your example is standing watching a herd of dairy cows. There are 29 black cows and 1 brown cow. Then the guy next to you comments on your mixed color herd. Trane is the exception not the rule, by far. Large Cops amongst us are going bankrupt so that they may walk from bloated benefits like these when they resurface. In record number! "
TO: Nestor IV wrote on Apr 12, 2007 4:08 PM:
" you only show your ignorance blaming these funding cuts on Bush. They were there well before his presidency and even have little to do with the funding shortages for benfits during. Get a clue. It appaears to me that the COunty is not getting the 'bst and the brightest' offering these benefits, as they have stated. You are living proof. "
To: Spock wrote on Apr 12, 2007 4:05 PM:
" Yeah baby. Be careful or they will be correcting your spelling and grammar next. They are the only limp arguments or deflections they can make concerning the real issues. Of course the cost of this will far surpass the lie that they have knowingly put out. Keep up the good work. you can make a difference. They do not have to wait until the next contract it is immediate coverage. There is only a waiting period for pre-existing coverages. Even if thery break up the County will continue coverage for another 6 months. The County is not legally obligated by Cobra laws, and you can bet the three years continuation will be fought in court soon, very soon. "
Re: to the ignorant wrote on Apr 12, 2007 3:59 PM:
" Your original comment was that UW is considering, not has or implementing. I'm sure the State legislature will have something to say about it. Again, think before you say something.
PS I put in Lennox instead of Trane to see if you would catch it. You didn't.
"
Re: Nestor ; This would never stand up in Court! wrote on Apr 12, 2007 3:41 PM:
" That is why there is an Appeals and Supreme Court. The people of Wisconsin have spoken on this issue and there is no legal entity known by me for domestic partners and it cannot be equated with marriage.
Exactly what legal grounds do they have to spend taxpayers money to insure employee uncontracted room-mates? None? They're betting on that the will of the residents of the County has been broken and will never fight it. That might be true but unfortunate.
There are several national law firms that deal with the culture war that know better than us. Perhaps they should be contacted.
"
re: to the ignorant wrote on Apr 12, 2007 3:14 PM:
" You define ignorant if you think the UW system
is part of the "private sector". "
nester IV wrote on Apr 12, 2007 2:58 PM:
" maybe all those governments are falling behind because of Bush's tax cuts do the math. I'm sure you can figure it out "
Re: to the ignorant wrote on Apr 12, 2007 2:51 PM:
" Private companies can do what they want, goverment cannot. Perhaps you should think before you speak.
Thanks for the tip on Lennox because it will not be my next purchase. "
Spock wrote on Apr 12, 2007 2:37 PM:
" Is this really a cost saving?
We know medical insurance always goes up.
We do not know how many employees will convert.
We do know La Crosse county has very good health insurance, so if numerous employees switch to family at the next contract will all employees be asked bear the cost if the estimate of $39000 not realistic? "
to the ignorant wrote on Apr 12, 2007 1:46 PM:
" La Cosse county already has private sector businesses that allow domestic partner benefits. Trane Company is a leading example. The University of Wisconsin system is also considering such benefits as well. I say the more insured individuals the better. I am not a government employee but those of you who complain just sound jealous. Nester do you provide your employees with Health/dental/401k? "
Spock wrote on Apr 12, 2007 1:38 PM:
" Just questions. Is $39,000 per year an accurate estimate for adding the domestic partner benefit? From the counties newsletter; a single employee costs $536 a
MONTH and a family policy costs the county
$1305 a month. About $800/month diffence or
$9600 a year. That would take only " 4 "
people to switch from individual to family to reach the estimated $39000 cost. I am I missing something here??? Or was this cost estimate extremely underestimated. I suppose
we will have to wait until the next county budget to see and see what we have to get out next year to support this handout beneifit. "
Nestor TO:I doubt if this would ever stand up in court! wrote on Apr 12, 2007 12:12 PM:
" Not a chance. You see, the largest portion of law is 'Administrative law'. Not many regular people realize this. No Jury, no peers, an appointee for the job. Kind of like Legrand was at DA, FCC, and Circuit Court. The VAST majority of these people are bureaucrats, Democrats, people that have made a career sniffing around the public trough. Do you really think a fair and impartial ruling would come out of such a hearing. The often heard 'binding Arbitration' cases are heard by the same people, as a matter of fact so are Work Comp cases. That is why the Ziegler election was so great. Quite frankly they do not need your vote. "
re: On-line poll wrote on Apr 12, 2007 11:46 AM:
" Talk about spin, there was only one selection
on that poll a person could select if you were
opposed to this issue. The selection stated:
"Opposed for MORAL reasons". It did not say "ANY" reason. The other selections
slanted the poll in favor of the issue.
What if one was against this for fiscal reasons?
Nice try spinny! "
to nestor wrote on Apr 12, 2007 11:32 AM:
" is that a threat? "
JQ wrote on Apr 12, 2007 11:24 AM:
" I think I speak for many in this City when I say BRAVO LA CROSSE! "
I doubt if this would ever stand up in court! wrote on Apr 12, 2007 11:18 AM:
" I see no legal basis for the goverment to insure employees roommates. If there is one I would like to see it but I highly doubt if there is one. Don't be surprised if this is challenged. "
A single female county employee wrote on Apr 12, 2007 11:03 AM:
" and I was thrilled this passed. Now my boyfriend can get cheaper and better insurance through me although we will be paying more for the family than the single plan. How is it 2 people on the family plan have to pay the same as a married couple with 6 kids? We were told by a counselor that getting married just for the insurance wasn't a good idea. Now if the unions would just pass the insurance coverage for birth control that was mandated by the Attorney General, the County could save more money by not having to pay for married people having all those kids. "
TO: To: Nestor wrote on Apr 12, 2007 10:21 AM:
" Although you will see more of our horses aired in the next elections. Pay attention. "
Dare I say it aloud! wrote on Apr 12, 2007 9:52 AM:
" These 'partners' are climbing on Board becuase 'they do not have government jobs', period! With that they do not have as affordable, as good, as free insurance. Simple! Now they are going to jump on the same wagon and pass the private sector worker as they wave from sitting on the curb. The gap grows wider. This is not about social injustice, never was, it is about money! Rememebr post retirement insurance is next, at $140k and up per package. 25k overrides a savings of 125k, my rear end! 'Boss hog' Doyle and his Democrat pals at Hazard County are just buying votes. "
TO: To: Re: Jeni wrote on Apr 12, 2007 9:43 AM:
" "25k vs 125k", you might do the math in five years. They now have the "entitlement", there will be more, much more, and the 125k will be dwarfed and gained back by the unions. Pay attention. Wishing it were so does not make it. "
Nice job LaCrosse County..... wrote on Apr 12, 2007 9:37 AM:
" on becoming more and more like Madison. What a disappointment to those of us who value morals.
Politics, that's all this was about. Saving money??? What a joke!! "
To Nestor wrote on Apr 12, 2007 8:42 AM:
" Don't you have anything better to do than sit on a computer and complain about every single thing that occurs in the city of La Crosse? If you you dont like the current goings on of things, maybe you should run for office? I would love to see that! "
There are no public policy reason for it! wrote on Apr 12, 2007 8:07 AM:
" How is goverment insuring an employees roommate going to benefit society?
Public policy isn't about how much you love each other of if you can't marry because you're not hetrosexual. It's about how it benefits society, thus justifying taxpayer expense.
Throughout history, marriage has been supported because it benefits society. Historically, alternative lifestyles have not.
Why was this passed when there is no public policy reason for it?
"
On-line Poll doesn't oppose benefits wrote on Apr 12, 2007 6:03 AM:
" As of 5:50 am this morning those in favor or don't care in the Tribune on-line poll are well ahead of those opposed!
Recap of results
Oppose for any reason =502
Approve for any reason & don't care = 647
That's 56% that don't oppose the benefits. Nearly a landslide in election terms, very similar to the negative vote against the gay marriage ban amendment here in La Crosse County. The County decision seems to reflect more voter support than reported.
"
Progress wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:16 PM:
" Times are changing and statistics show that more and more hetrosexual couples are chosing to live with each other rather than marry so to insinuate that this is a benefit only for gay couples is just wrong. Years ago when I married my husband and we chose his health insurance policy there was concern that it would not cover my children from my first marriage - they weren't really related after all - it was unheard of. Today it goes without saying that coverage through a step parent's employment would cover the children. Just shows how times change and acceptance will come here too. "
the big loophole wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:06 PM:
" A goverment employee has a friend, who is not necessarily a partner, who needs health insurance. They "move in together." A fraud is being committed, but who will know? And who will be able to challenge? We know who will pay. "
umm, I disagree wrote on Apr 11, 2007 10:15 PM:
" The government handouts to themselves has to stop! I am married (legally). We both work in the private sector. Our insurance companies REQUIRE this: if each of our employers offer medical/dental then each of us has to take out the plan offered by the company we work for. This is now common. Why should this be different for goverment workers and spouses, partners, whatever. “This is not a political statement,” said Board Chairman Steve Doyle. Umm, I disagree. It most certainly is. "
Correct wrote on Apr 11, 2007 9:45 PM:
" Voters in this state were frightened into voting on the side of intolerance, bigotry and fear to deny homosexuals and common-law companions the rights to marriage and civil unions. But those of us on the side of understanding, tolerance, compassion, and respect will not go away. We will work at restoring the civil rights of every American until we succeed. America can afford nothing less. Whether it be in the workplace or in the benefit package, we shall overcome. Love shall triumph over hate any day. God expects that from us. "
To: Re: Jeni...ran out of room... wrote on Apr 11, 2007 9:28 PM:
" I am not adding more to pick on you. I just wished to address all points of your rebuttal...
Regarding concealed gun carry laws, I personally need more info. There is a time and a place for every thing (concealed guns DON'T belong in schools). I still don't see the relevance gun laws have to this article or the relevance gay marriage, civil unions or the other things brought up that don't regard the vote passed Monday to allow benefits to unmarried couples (regardless of the genders of the two people).
"
To: Re: Jeni wrote on Apr 11, 2007 9:25 PM:
" Apology accepted. My comments on accepting change have to do with the way I was raised. I see people for what they are on the inside, not because of what is on the outside. I was raised knowing labels are for jars, not people. I would rather pay my share of $25K/year versus $125K/year, but some people can't do the math. No, my last comment is not addressed at you personally.
PS...Thank you for wishing me luck on my college career, but I suggest rethinking things if you believe college students "live off the system." Going to college is a big deal especially when doing so allows one to seek better employment and hence not "live off the system." I do hope you, or anyone else here, never needs help. God forbid. Think of the taxpayers. "
TO: Social AND Economic Issue wrote on Apr 11, 2007 8:57 PM:
" "Incumbent upon us", my you almost appeared to tip over using that word. It is "incumbent" that you forget that plenty of "white people", and others are being continually passed by. They are called private sector workers. "incumbent", you crack me up! "
Think about this! wrote on Apr 11, 2007 8:38 PM:
" A little known, printed, aired hearing on Monday. Regarding a highly volatile, heartfelt, issue, and benefit. Not many present. That might answer the 8 MIA and one abstension. Certainly far less than when they held a hearing about cutting funds for the elderly, cute 4H representatives, chemical dependants, and other knife at a bunnies throat purposely selected Doyle/O'Malley choices (Thank God for the raffle). Then they do a final vote the same week? To quote Lamore, we have been 'dry gulched'. The vote on the amendment meant nothing, they know best. Replace them. "
Re: Jeni wrote on Apr 11, 2007 8:36 PM:
" I'm sorry I accused you of not paying taxes. I wish you luck in your continuing education and appreciate you are not living off the system. But that means both of us will be paying when the government collects money for these underfunded benefits. The reference to concealed carry is relevant to the article when it comes to change. You said people who cannot accept this are not willing to accept change and that you are willing to accept change. Does that mean if concealed carry is passed, which it will be because the NRA has power, you will not fight it? If you did fight it you would be fighting change. Just to clarify I am against concealed carry as well. As for these benefits, the government needs live within the amount of money the taxpayers have appropriated and only promise benefits they can afford. "
You are correct wrote on Apr 11, 2007 7:08 PM:
" There was vote and Gay couples cannot marry. Now the Democrats in Lacrosse that have voted along with Dane county (displayed in the last elections) to sidestep the majority will of the people and circumvent the outcome. Lock step, bi spending Democrats like Steve Doyle, Kirch, Shilling, Jim Doyle, and 'Brent on too many Boards', will see the changes coming. We cannot afford these bloated benefits, this unbridled spending, and the proof surrounds us. It will get worse before it gets better, although things will ultimately change in the near future. "
Social AND Economic Issue wrote on Apr 11, 2007 7:01 PM:
" It is an over-simplification to state it is just economics. It would be cheapest to only hire single people without spouses or domestic partners. If we are to extend benefits to married people, and our State has voted to deny marriage rights and civil unions to homosexual and domestic partners, then it is incumbent upon us to offer the same benefit package to every employee. To point out that there are plenty of conventional married people is to beg the question, the supply of white people would not be a good reason not to offer equal opportunity to minorities either. "
To: Re: Jeni wrote on Apr 11, 2007 5:32 PM:
" First off, I'm not a "poor college student not paying taxes." And you said I was accusing you of things you were not. I'm a returning adult student. I'm sorry for assuming you were republican, but your words spoke volumes. You simply insist on attacking me personally when my initial comments were made generally and were made to open the eyes of people who were so closed minded as to not see what the article was about. We have had people writing about the vote being about gay marriage. Totally off base. This vote was about allowing benefits. A simple thing, yet 160 comments later, people like yourself write this "What are you going to do when they allow people carry concealed weapons?" What does that have to do with the vote? "
Here's how they voted wrote on Apr 11, 2007 5:21 PM:
" Yes: Sharon Hampson, Margaret Wood, Jill Billings, Keith Belzer, Andrea Richmond, Jacie Gamroth, Maureen Freedland, John Medinger, Tom Rauk, Jason; Geillet, Jai Johnson, Bernie Maney, Lyell Montgomery, Tara Johnson, Vicki Burke, Jim Berns, Steve Doyle, Joe Bilskemper, Ann Fisher, and Brad Pfaff.
No: Ralph Geary, Gerald Sebranek, Don Bina, George Hammes, Charles Spiker, and Terry Hanson.
Abstain: James Ehrsam. Why?
"
Neighbor Counties will be joyful! wrote on Apr 11, 2007 5:04 PM:
" Now we can negotiate Lakeview costs and domestic partner costs at the same time! "
A matter of cost wrote on Apr 11, 2007 4:47 PM:
" This is an economic issue - not a social issue. For years Chrysler paid everything for everyone - they allowed an employee to cover a parent for example. Look where that ultimately lead. Everything comes with a cost. I am not sure when we started treated "domestic partners" special but we did. I consider myself a pretty darned good employee and I have a traditional lifestyle and pay my share and my spouses share of my healthcare premium. I kind of think there are more of us out there than you think - so I wouldn't worry about a shortage of good old fashioned married, monogamous people to hire "
Re: Jeni wrote on Apr 11, 2007 4:46 PM:
" I am looking forward to when taxpayers have to pay back for these underfunded benefits. Then I get to see the senior citizen next doorpay for this while she is on fixed income. Yes, you truely have shown you look out for everyone. Not all people can pay infinite amounts of taxes like you. No wait, that's right you are a college student, you don't make enough to pay taxes. No wonder you don't care about how much these benefits cost because you don't have to pay for them. Also, Im not a republican. (I voted for Kerry and Gore) You are accussing me of not accepting change when sometimes change is not for the best. What are you going to do when they allow people carry concealed weapons? You say you are not afraid of change so that must mean you are going to allow it? Right? "
Dear Ticked Off wrote on Apr 11, 2007 4:11 PM:
" You claim to support gay people getting married to get benefits. But are opposed to unmarried people getting benefits. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention but an election was held which denied gay people the right to get married. So in order to provide them with the same benefits as heterosexual married people, it is necessary to cover their 'domestic partner.' But of course you aren't doing this to bash gay people, or unmarried people living together, it is just to save money. Right. "
neighboring counties will help! wrote on Apr 11, 2007 3:10 PM:
" How wonderful for our neighboring counties.First we want them to share the costs of Lakeview center and now they can see they will also be helping us pay our domestic partner benefits. "
the right to marriage wrote on Apr 11, 2007 2:11 PM:
" All people should have the right to get legally married. People don't have the "right" to get insurance. I don't appreciate having to cough up money (taxes) to benefit people who shack up. I did it myself. I did not have children and no MA or welfare was involved. For years I didn't have any insurance, and I did just fine. If gay people could just be legally married, and get marriage benefits, that would be fine with me. Now I have to pay (because my tax money will be used, no doubt) for people who live together. I'm ticked off. "
Re: Andrew Nelson wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:29 AM:
" This isn't about gay marraige you pathetic fool, it's about benefits for unmarried couples...STRAIGHT OR GAY! Let's all bow down to all of those heterosexual bigot couples out there who are married, after all they're so much better than us "
Bad Public Policy wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:04 AM:
" There has been no accusation that employees have been treated unfairly.
Creating imaginary problems of uncontracted accomondatations of employees is not a problematic reason to change public policy.
Again I ask, what is the problem that this is supposed to fix? What in American history gives it legitimacy?
I contend that the answer is "nothing". "
TO: Fair Public Policy wrote on Apr 11, 2007 9:27 AM:
" This is far from "fair public policy". If it were it would have encompassed a large segment of our population, private workers'. Instead you ignore that while Gay couples are pulling same sex 'live-in' pals through the key hole with them and their benefits. You had to, you could not have without them. With no thought to costs, possible future ramifications, and the private sector workers left at curbside once again as your parade passes. "you 'reap' what you sow"? How about 'plowing' the field level and starting again. At what cost and suffering to others? "
Steve Doyle on TV News wrote on Apr 11, 2007 9:15 AM:
" It almost seemed to me like Bubba sitting back with a straw hanging out of his mouth drawling, 'it ain't gonna be that much monee, only 6 or 7 are gonna be covaad'. What the heck just a few thousand dollars. Like the other portion of 1400 heterosexual employees with 'live-in' pals will be soon covered in the next negotiations using 'comparables'? Truth? These people gave birth to O'Malley. Check to see O'Malley's rate of pay growth. Was it the often mentioned 2-3%. It was not even close for the first years to date. Tribune? We are supposed to believe these fellas as gospel? "
TO: I love it wrote on Apr 11, 2007 8:48 AM:
" Government employees like to skip the conversation to pay rather than stay on discussion on benefits. This is because it is easier to fabricate and hide behind excuses. The fact is 'pay' should be on an individual/job basis, on merit, and the free market in that classification. Benefits?, now there it many times is all across the Board and definately much harder to defend. You would now like to talk about same sex couples. The added cost will come mostly with 'heterosexual couples'. The real question is, In negotiation why don't they use private sector counterpart comparables and averages? "
Fair Public Policy wrote on Apr 11, 2007 8:48 AM:
" Bad public policy? How about fair public policy. A policy that treats all employees with respect and understanding. That provides for each to live in their own 'lifestyle' without judgment from those who are unable to understand. When the voters of Wisconsin denied adult citizens of this state the right to enter into civil unions, the right to be married if homosexual, they created the problem that cannot be solved by requiring marriage as a precondition to benefits. Their short-sightedness resulted in the need to develop alternative approaches to retain employees. You reap what you sow. "
TO: Poor and Elderly Taxpayers wrote on Apr 11, 2007 8:37 AM:
" Keep up your posts. It only illustrates the convoluted thinking on an issue like this. You have no compassion for the elderly and poor, although you make it clear that we are to then have compassion for Domestic Partners? You are indeed the type of person that I do not allow my children to go up to the buffet table with. They run the risk of being hurt or shoved for that last shrimp. It is called self serving. The gap has grown wider over the last twenty years, period! "playing the violin", shame on you. "
To: Re: Jeni wrote on Apr 11, 2007 7:51 AM:
" Quoting "It's about simple economics and the price we pay for all of those rediculous government benfits."...Who do you think pays for your Republican buddies? The next time your discussion of your benefits comes up, please say no. Your words tell me you don't like change. The next time roads need fixing, please say no (again change, with cost even).
I don't know what world you live in, but I choose to live in one where people take care of each other, change occurs and most importantly, love exists. While I'd love to continue this lively chat, I have an education I need to leave this chat to continue. Oh wait, that must be why I'm going to school though, it costs money and I'm paying (tuition increases even). I love state schools. Uh-oh, ours are discussing benefits too. "
Bad Public Policy wrote on Apr 11, 2007 7:47 AM:
" Does the County have a shortage of domestic partners? Does the County have a turn over problem of single employees? Does the county have trouble hiring single people? What are the facts to justify changing such an important policy? Exactly what is the problem that the County is trying to cure?
The very issues that should be addressed in changing public policy are not even mentioned. This should go up for referendum so that the people can decide after hearing what the true issues are.
"
To: Hmph wrote on Apr 11, 2007 7:31 AM:
" You write: "Hmph. Men "in love" with men, women "in love" with women, and all the living together and bed hopping by homos and heteros alike, pretty much ARE the "lowest common denominators."
The world has passed you by. The Constitution of Wisconsin has been amended to deny gays and lesbians the right to marriage, yet many live in households right here in La Crosse and raise children and contribute to our community in a very positive fashion. THEY are not the lowest common denominator. The bottom dwellers are those who stick their heads in the sand and spew hate and intolerance. Let us learn to love one another, respect one another, and provide benefits for every employee without bigoted preconditions. "
EndTheWar Win It wrote on Apr 11, 2007 6:46 AM:
" Has your domestic partner ever gone shopping? Upon return announces in all those bags there are $300 in savings! Yet it cost $500 to achieve the savings! I lived, platonically thank you, with a same sex room mate for 3 years. Not once did the thought occur to try to milk the other's employer for benefits. Two agendas are at work here. 1) Incrementally chew away until the gov't pays for every ones health insurance. Right now the "working poor", bureaucrats and illegal aliens are covered. Why not EVERYONE? 2) Gimme, Gimme, I DESERVE, I DESERVE mentality. I don't want to provide for myself so some one else has to give it to me! "
A better plan wrote on Apr 11, 2007 6:29 AM:
" I would have been more comfortable had they allowed the coverage but had the member pay the extra cost - or if all the members increased their out of pocket to cover this expense which ultimately increases the risk pool as a whole. "
To Bravo wrote on Apr 11, 2007 6:25 AM:
" People like you make me cringe to be a part of this community. Just because people are increasing becoming devoid of any real moral values doesn't mean we all have to jump on the "anything goes" bandwagon. I like to think we are more intelligent moral value group of individuals. "
Real cost wrote on Apr 11, 2007 6:20 AM:
" The real cost will be the extra medical that they will be responsible for = not just the premium. I also don't buy the 1% negotiated cutback in raises. This doesn't make sense that a group of reasonable employees will do a give back so that a few people would benefit. Something smells here... "
No way this saves money! Nice negotiating job by union by the way! wrote on Apr 11, 2007 6:15 AM:
" What kind of union forgoes a pay raise in order to insure boyfriends and girlfriends of a couple of its members? Don't get that. Also number 1 reason to oppose this- LAX Co. is borrowing for roads and extending health care coverage to even more employees? Look long term- this may or may not save county money in this contract- what about the next and the next. The benefit is now here in perpetuity and WE CANNOT AFFORD IT! "
Ironic, Isn't It? wrote on Apr 11, 2007 4:29 AM:
" All the private sectors are cutting back benefits and requiring employees to pay more for less. PLEASE POST THE COUNTY BOARD AGENDAS/MEETINGS WELL IN ADVANCE IN THE TRIB AND ON THIS SITE...I will be there! Bet you will have standing room only. "
I love it wrote on Apr 11, 2007 2:22 AM:
" I love it when people claim that allowing domestic partner benefits is going to cause this huge financial burden on everyone when there's absolutely no proof to support that. In MA, domestic partnerships have been the norm for a few years and theres no data to show that it hurts or helps businesses, individuals, or the community as a whole. Get some numbers before you all get up on your soapbox about how much it's going to cost everyone. According to the census there are only 8,000 same sex couples state wide. I doubt La Crosse county offering benefits to its employee's domestic partner is going to break the bank. "
Who is Clueless? wrote on Apr 10, 2007 11:38 PM:
" Shame on your mean comments. Dick Swantz and John Medinger not only have clues, they have answers. They have dedicated their lives to others, from the Peace Corps to Public Education. Dick Swantz is well known for his concern about those with less means that the City provide them with a quality education. Nobody has a bigger heart, and cares more about the common man than John Medinger. Where do you get this garbage? Those that care about others would realize that many employees are legitimately caught in the 'not married' but 'with significant other' category. Do not act to hurt others out of your own meanness. "
RE: Move wrote on Apr 10, 2007 11:01 PM:
" Because I disagree with this, I'm a KKK member?
Nice to see the "open" minded left is open to a discussion on this very sensitive topic.
Let me guess you disagree with the Iraq War, think president Bush is the devil, and yet you are a Patriot. CAN YOU SAY DOUBLE STANDARD!!!!!!! "
To: Feeling a Song wrote on Apr 10, 2007 10:32 PM:
" Your wit overwhelms me. Your sense of music is impressive. And your public display of bigotry is an embarrassment. Instead singing songs of ridicule, why not concentrate on melodies of love, stanzas of understanding, and lyrics of respect and appreciation. "
Poor and Elderly Taxpayers wrote on Apr 10, 2007 10:29 PM:
" Playing the violin of the poor and elderly taxpayer does not justify discriminating against non-traditional couples employed by the County. It is only fair and decent to over the same benefits to all of our employees. Especially since the Constitution has been amended to deny marriage and civil unions to same sex and heterosexual couples, it is necessary to provide this benefit to those who are now prohibited from becoming married or enjoying the benefits of civil unions. If we limit benefits to only those married, and then tell non-traditional employees that they can have benefits if they are married, and yet deny them the ability to become married, we shall deny them the basic benefits that we provide for their fellow employees. Technically, this may be legal, but in practice smacks of mean-spirited policy designed to hurt people that we find difficult to understand. "
You people can figure this out wrote on Apr 10, 2007 10:26 PM:
" Doyle fills the seats with people like Swantz, Medinger, and others. The truth?, They already are set for their aging years. Now they are paying back the favors that enabled them to do just that. More truth? They do not have a clue, they do not have any idea to have more month left than money, they do not know what it is like to experience fear of a serious illness. If they did they would use private worker averages and spread it around a little more equitably. They will not change nor will the 'comparables'. "
Re: To Nestor, et al wrote on Apr 10, 2007 10:19 PM:
" Hmph. Men "in love" with men, women "in love" with women, and all the living together and bed hopping by homos and heteros alike, pretty much ARE the "lowest common denominators." But of course anyone against this blatant immorality is called hateful and bigoted. Just wonder, where is YOUR tolerance of people who still believe (gasp) that sex is for marriage, and marriage is one man and one woman?? The whole country has gone berserk. "
Partner wrote on Apr 10, 2007 10:14 PM:
" As a La Crosse County Employee, Union Member and Domestic Partner, I would like to take this opportunity to correct all of the private sector, non-union, married, but none-the-less misinformed persons out there who are saying this meeting was held behind closed doors. This meeting and the Executive Committee Meeting immediately preceding it were not held behind closed doors. The doors were wide open had you chosed to be in attendance. Perhaps you were just too busy passing judgment on other people that you don't even know. I, personally think that is God's job, and I sincerely hope, for your sake, that he doesn't mind your doing it for him. "
In five years wrote on Apr 10, 2007 9:54 PM:
" This benefit will be open to all 1400 jobs within Lacrosse County employement. Doyle states it will just be a few. In that time there will be more than just a few employees, and their heterosexual pals will be encompassed in this health benefit. Time will tell, although it will do no good to say so. With this vote it now is an 'entitlement'. It will be irrelevant how much it will cost to be 'first' in the state, and 'progressive'. "
TO: To: Nestor wrote on Apr 10, 2007 9:48 PM:
" First your thinly guised attack on me attempting to couple me with the anti Gay remarks on this site are just that. Second, your using the well worn government employee excuse you have to pay/benefit to attract the best is not reflected in the number of applicants you receive for the vast majority of your job openings. As far as holding "ourselves to a higher standard based on the decency"? Fine, although at what cost to the poor and elderly taxpayers that are not wrapped in the same warm benefit blanket. Sell it down the street. You honestly believe that most out there do not get 'it'? Even the government employees get 'it', they just do not say 'it' aloud. There is a huge disparity between private sector and government employee benefits, which we all pay for. "
Re: Jeni wrote on Apr 10, 2007 9:44 PM:
" I am not against the idea of giving the benefits but how much is this going to cost? The fund to pay for government employee benefits is already deep in the red. Nestor pointed it out that Milwaukee county is underfunded by over a billion dollars!!! Who do you think is going to pick up the tab for these payments? Your tree in the backyard that grows money? Of course it's not because the taxpayers will. I voted against the marriage amendment and I am against giving out these added benefits because we cannot afford to add more benfits. If anything the government needs to be cut back benefits for every person. Also reduce Doyle's rediculous 125k salary. This is not about "progressivism". It's about simple economics and the price we pay for all of those rediculous government benfits. "
Move wrote on Apr 10, 2007 9:01 PM:
" If you don't like it, participate in local government or move to where you can wear your white hoods in public. "
Steve Doyle For political office wrote on Apr 10, 2007 8:40 PM:
" He did it to get the Madison insiders attention! He knows what they want they get and look out Wisconsin. "
I feel a song coming on... wrote on Apr 10, 2007 8:39 PM:
" I feel pretty...oh so pretty, and witty and gay! I feel insured, oh so insured...getting my boyfriends bennies on taxes you pay! "
andrew nelson wrote on Apr 10, 2007 8:15 PM:
" marriage is one man + one woman. Enough said. There should be NO BENEFITS for being gay because it is a sin and morally wrong. I feel very upset that LaCrosse would do something like this. "
Good wrote on Apr 10, 2007 8:06 PM:
" Glad to hear La Crosse is looking for equality, way to go board! "
saving money??????? wrote on Apr 10, 2007 7:49 PM:
" Once again the county is looking at today instead of three years from now. How does the county save money when just about anyone can be considered a domestic partner under the guidelines in the contract. With the exception of the 12 month wait to actually be able to collect on the benefits this is a bum deal for the taxpayers......this is coming from a county employee. You can compare this aggreement with the Law Enforcement Center which opened in 1997 and ten years later it is to small to house the most dangerous people of LaCrosse. Back when the county voted to build the Law Enforcement Center they made several cuts to the building such as cutting the inmate capacity of the jail from 420 to 172 to save money. Nice going County leaders you have do it again. "
To: Nestor wrote on Apr 10, 2007 7:40 PM:
" No, we cannot be responsible for the mean-spirited actions of the electorate in passing the Amendment denying gays and heterosexuals the right to civil union or marriage. But we as employers can work to attract the most qualified individuals by providing a benefit package that is competitive and does not discriminate based on sexual orientation or marital status. We can certainly hold ourselves to a higher standard based on the decency such actions will provide. Or we can lower ourselves to the lowest common denominator (that is more than represented on this blog.) "
LET'S CAN THE COUNTY BOARD... wrote on Apr 10, 2007 7:39 PM:
" and VOTE on divisive issues such as this. We were all just at the polls. Why wasn't this something to be voted on? It would not have passed, would it? "
To "Free Exercise of Religion" wrote on Apr 10, 2007 7:38 PM:
" You have everything twisted around. We cannot justify discrimination based on the fact that a religious group does not approve of homosexual marriage or unmarried heterosexual couples. It is not discrimination against YOU that justifies discrimination against THEM. Our laws protect employment. Your religious beliefs and activity are not threatened by the expression of TOLERANCE on the part of the government. You continue to speak in an upside-down, topsy-turvy fashion. You may be straight but your thinking is convoluted. "
Jeni wrote on Apr 10, 2007 7:30 PM:
" Quoting To: Jeni "I also feel that the county is setting themselves up for a lawsuit by prohibiting the free exercise of religion by forcing people to support this."
I'm sorry I don't see where anyone is being "forced." What was passed was an option. Those who wish to obtain benefits and are in a domestic partner situation can now obtain those benefits from La Crosse County. On the news tonight more was explained about ok'ing domestic benefits. By not making the changes, the cost to the county would have been about $125K/year. By passing it, the cost is about $25k/year, to the county.
I do find it amazing that this one story is causing this much fallout over such a controversial topic - benefits. Wow! What a sad place we live in. "
TO: Since when do employers actually PAY for spouses/partners? wrote on Apr 10, 2007 7:00 PM:
" You have no idea what you are talking about. You must work for the government. Your knowledge illustrates you are artificially sheltered and ignorant of the insurance industry. "
Homophobia? wrote on Apr 10, 2007 6:58 PM:
" RA, please keep your homophobia to yourself. Same sex marriages will not diminish nor accentuate your marriage. Just as interracial laws years ago never helped the stability or quality of same race marriages. You have been sold a bill of goods. But denying people the protection of marriage, denying individuals insurance coverage that you give to their heterosexual peers is mean-spirited and hateful. We as a society need to decide whether we respect each other in a loving fashion, or if we resort to bigotry in determining our social policies. "
If you think ..... wrote on Apr 10, 2007 6:57 PM:
" that the remaining from the 1400 workers are not going to use this comparable the next go around you are kidding yourself. If you think that this will encompass just a handful of heterosexual unmarried couples your are kidding yourself. If you think that we will quickly eat up the $125k supposedly 'saved?' and quickly surpass it, you are again kidding yourself. They know it, we know it, and they are not being honest with us. Remember this next election. "
TO: About hatred-The taxpayers of this County, wrote on Apr 10, 2007 6:51 PM:
" State or Country are not responsible for the voting (past or present) on a Gay amendment. The problem here is pulling all pals through the key hole to give benefits to possibly serious committed unmarried couples (Gay or straight). Regardless of your views it does indeed involve affordability for our poor, and elederly in the County. Never have I heard the ramifications of Federal Cobra Laws (3 years) for example. I also would be remiss if I did not state again that I feel this as a precursor to Post retirement benefits and the huge funding needed to cover that benefit. One thing I know is that the government as it hands out these generous benefits, the disparity only becomes wider for the private sector worker who sees none of it all too often. Nestor "
To:Jeni wrote on Apr 10, 2007 6:48 PM:
" Sorry about the misspelling last time. That was my mistake. But, on your other points you are off base. It is still my money and I should be able to spend it as I see fit. While I realize we all have to pay taxes whether we want to or not, I do find living together(domestic partnerships) immoral. Right or wrong, that is my opinion. I would never want a law passed that says people can't live together if they aren't married or anything of the sort. But, I just don't feel like paying for it. I also feel that the county is setting themselves up for a lawsuit by prohibiting the free exercise of religion by forcing people to support this. That is all. Nothing to do with what year it is, the dark ages, etc. "
Some of You Are Confused wrote on Apr 10, 2007 6:45 PM:
" This is County people, not City. Get your info right please. The County used to be responsible, but no more. "
Since when do employers actually PAY for spouses/partners? wrote on Apr 10, 2007 6:01 PM:
" My husband is on my health plan at work, but I pick up the entire tab for him. Only my part of the bill is subsidized. The only real "benefit" for him is that he takes advantage of the larger pool, which ultimately drives down the cost for everyone. If more people are on the plan, the company or govt. can negotiate for lower rates, which benefits everyone. In this case, taxpayers too. But heaven forfend that the homophobes and "me too" whiners here let simple economic facts get in the way of their imagined grievances. "
R A wrote on Apr 10, 2007 5:36 PM:
" Do a Recall folks, the marriage issue on gays was voted down in La Crosse. In the Sunday tribune there was a 25 anniversary celebration of a gay couple in the marriage, engagement section of the paper. To me it was disgusting. WE as normal couples are being deminished by those who want the same but can never be, marriage by the definition will always be the same. Do something about this folks, those who are paying the taxes in La Crosse and are offended. City Hall is the city, not a place of business or corporation, and if it was done behine closed doors, those sitting on the council are responsible. You voted them to be there. "
Dear Bigots wrote on Apr 10, 2007 5:31 PM:
" Get a clue. The Board passed this proposal because it saves taxpayer dollars. Had the deadlock with the union gone to arbitration and the County lost, it would have cost an additional $125,000 a year. This isn't a bunch of liberals imposing their views on the public. It's a bunch of responsible elected officials trying to save money for you unappreciative hate-mongers. "
Not surprising wrote on Apr 10, 2007 5:15 PM:
" I heard that this was in the wind and I also predicted that it would win. Come on people in LaCrosse - where is the outrage!!! This is your tax dollars at work here. "
Crazy wrote on Apr 10, 2007 5:14 PM:
" It I were a Union worker (which Thank God I am not) I would be livid about giving up a 1% raise so that we can insure people who want to have their cake and eat it too. Either you are commited about your relationship(straight people) or you are not. If not find your own insurance and don't leech off others. "
Jeni wrote on Apr 10, 2007 4:55 PM:
" To:Jenoi (it's Jeni, by the way)
wrote on April 10, 2007 3:34 PM:
"I simply do not want to help financially support domestic partners(gay or straight)."
Thinking only of yourself is a wonderful thing. Enjoy your selfishness. Are you married? If so, I don't really care to pay for your spouse's benefits either, but guess what, I do. Sounds crappy, doesn't it. In reality, I accept my responsibilities and do what I have to do and don't complain.
Guess what, there is a lot in our lives we don't like doing. Most people do the things anyway. It is called being human and maybe if more people realized that, we would take care of each other and thus live in a happier place.
PS...regardless of your relationship status, I'll think of you the next time I pay my taxes. "
Good Job County Board wrote on Apr 10, 2007 4:54 PM:
" I rarely agree with Steve Doyle or this County Board, but I have to say GOOD JOB on this one! "
Good Public Policy. wrote on Apr 10, 2007 4:50 PM:
" Good public policy means hiring the most capable public servant. This requires providing a competitive benefit package. Many talented potential employees have families. Some of these are not married in a traditional sense. To hire these people requires offering an equivalent package that includes benefits. Good public policy is never about instituting hateful discriminatory practices that are frankly unAmerican! "
excellent! wrote on Apr 10, 2007 4:48 PM:
" I have regained my faith in the city of LaCrosse... thank you... I'm so glad this passed... Makes it a little easier to see that some people do really respect others... "
re: RE:8:45am post wrote on Apr 10, 2007 4:38 PM:
" Sad to say but it happens everyday to the people
who oppose abortion.
How about the Minneapolis Public School system
installing foot baths for the Muslim children
who were falling off the sinks because they
are required to wash their feet before they pray.
Where is my kneeler?? The list goes on. Wake up people, the double standard applied in this Country by the minority
"feel gooders" is going to drain every nickel from your pocket! "
Steve Doyle and the rest are WRONG! wrote on Apr 10, 2007 4:29 PM:
" I do not feel our county board is doing any of us tax payers a service by having this meeting behind closed doors without us being able to vote on this. I just called Bob Taunt who is the personnel director and he said anyone questioning this should bring it up to the board members. I will be doing that and will remember this when it is time to vote these board members out! "
delighted wrote on Apr 10, 2007 4:23 PM:
" I for one am very wary of getting married for various reasons. I will not get married simply for the benefits. But I may want to live with someone I'm in a relationship with, which is only lacking the documentation that accompanies marriage. Do not forget, not all religions see marriage as the only moral way to be with someone you love. Why should I have to make a mockery of marriage just so I or my partner have the same benefits married couples do? If I were to have a child, would it not be better to have those DPB's than go on medical assistance??? "
Altering American History - yes it is! wrote on Apr 10, 2007 4:07 PM:
" All employees are treated equally, that is the law. Domestic partners are not employees and they have no contract with the employee as do married couples.
Hmm haw all you want but this is bad policy and there is nothing in American history that supports it.
Go to work for a private company that wants to do this but our goverment should not be using tax dollars contrary to good public policy. "
Another view? wrote on Apr 10, 2007 3:47 PM:
" These benefits could easily be offered to Gay couples with a simple twist of the rules. They could require joint ownership, tenants in common contracts, and more stringent requirements that should not be unpalatable to a committed couple in love (vehicles, property, housing?). Although you do not see them introduced in any way. It is most certainly not the fault of the every average taxpayer that Gay couples cannot be legally married, although there are different approaches that are available. "
TCB wrote on Apr 10, 2007 3:45 PM:
" Why do the government workers need to be protected by unions? Are they incompetent? If not why not let them do a good job and let them compete for their job like the rest of us. Who is this guy who said that it wont cost more because they were not asking for a larger wage increase in trade for the domestic partner program. Reward the good productive workers and tell the others what they will be paid, if they don't like their job they should do like the rest of the free world, get a job where they are paid what they are worth. "
Planet Stasiak wrote on Apr 10, 2007 3:40 PM:
" Since this involves tax money-shouldn't this have been presented to the voters in the form of a referendum? "
Re:8:45am post wrote on Apr 10, 2007 3:38 PM:
" I am still waiting for an answer to this question...some people feel "shacking up"(same or opposite sex) is wrong because of religious convictions. It is one thing to "live and let live", but another for the Government to force people to violate their religious convictions by making them financially support these people. I smell a class action lawsuit coming against the county. "
To:Jenoi wrote on Apr 10, 2007 3:34 PM:
" It has nothing to do with what year this is, living in the dark ages, progressing or regressing, or anything of the sort. You are confusing the issue. I simply do not want to help financially support domestic partners(gay or straight). "
About Hatred wrote on Apr 10, 2007 3:32 PM:
" Nestor you may say that it is about affordability and not hatred, but after the last election that put a Constitutional Amendment designed to deny gays and common-law spouses the rights to marriage, I find it impossible to believe that the current 'uproar' over the benefits is not due to gay employees receiving benefits that hetero couples are receiving. If we cannot afford the benefits, let's eliminate all the benefits. Then let's see what kind of employees our County can retain. "
TO: Fear and Lies wrote on Apr 10, 2007 3:32 PM:
" You are living in a state of denial. Call me and I will send you something. You are just plain wrong. "
The epitomy of 'smoke an mirrors'. wrote on Apr 10, 2007 3:20 PM:
" Actually brushing dangerously close to, 'not telling the truth'? "Personnel Director Robert Taunt estimated three people in each unit would convert from single to family coverage, at a combined cost of about $39,000 a year. The savings of 1 percent in raises to the county is $149,299", This benefit and information will be networked and grabbed on to by many more 'couples'. A simple glance on those statistics will reflect that increase. By then it will be too late. By then they will be after us for the pay raises they were not given, forgetting the 'domestic coverage' period and the pom/poms they waved furiously. Nobody is fooled, they just feel helpless.
"
TO: Melon Head wrote on Apr 10, 2007 3:06 PM:
" You will never see this "retracted". It is now an 'entitlement'. Now they will come for the pay increases. Statistics show that government employees are already paid more than their private sector counterparts. I know they disguise and argue, although stay on point and the facts are with you. The problem is that the 'other side' has given up, and feels they can no longer make a difference. How sad. "
It is most certainly not the fault ...... wrote on Apr 10, 2007 2:57 PM:
" of the every average taxpayer that Gay couples cannot be legally married. Although there are different approaches that are available. You can be sure that you cannot offer these benefits to Gay couples and not to heterosexual couples. It most certainly would not survive a legal test. You can be sure these County leaders are aware of that point as well. It is my opinion the need for social equality is outweighed by adding more generous, expensive unaffordable County benefits that far too many amongst us can no longer afford. We should all consider the difference between social equality strides, and those financially floundering among us. Both are deserving, but at what cost to the other? "
Did you even read the article!? wrote on Apr 10, 2007 2:51 PM:
" To all of those ridiculous comments about animals, or brothers, parents as domestic partners- stop being ignorant. No. Those are not domestic partners. The article states how many estimated employees will use it. It also states that it saving money by doing this, becuase otherwise they would have had to pay out more in raises.
And fine- All you people go get a job with the city and register your same sex roomate. You'll be having to admit to your employer that you are gay.
And to all the people with comments about entitlement- I can't give my partner of 10 years benefits, but it's totally fine for "Bob" to go get married in vegas over the weekend and his new wife that he met in a bar is entitled to his benefits... which seems more wrong?
"
Nestor wrote on Apr 10, 2007 2:26 PM:
" This is not about hatred. This is simply about not being able to afford it, and mostly because almost all workers in the private sector do not have this benefit and others. This is a fairness, and equality point that some do not want to reflect on. If you think this is only affecting our City, County or State call me 782-6093 and leave your e-mail. I will send you something to read how widespread and bad it has grown. There is no question that Legrand lost because of past errant behavior. Let me know if you would help to change the County Board members for the next election when you call. You can make a difference. "
No more single people wrote on Apr 10, 2007 2:17 PM:
" will be working for La Crosse county in a short time. Real smart La Crosse....NOT! "
Steve Gores: Citizens for Responsible Gov't-La Crosse County. Can't believe this passed! wrote on Apr 10, 2007 2:17 PM:
" I think it's clear from the vast majority of posts here that Steve Doyle and the "Madison West" ultra-liberal contingent on the LAX county board are clearly out of touch with the sensibilities and preferences of the people they purport to represent. Does anyone with common sense actually believe that extending a significant benefit like health care coverage to a brand new group of people will not cost the county taxpayers in the long run? Reid, again- could you provide the public the names of the 20 supervisors who thought this was a good idea? The Trib made this story a Page 1 headline after all. Voters are entitled to read in your paper clearly and plainly WHO thought this was a prudent deal for taxpayers besides Sharon Hampson, Steve Doyle and Maureen Freedland. FYI- all 35 board members face election next April. Wake up La Crosse voters! "
Bigotry? wrote on Apr 10, 2007 2:16 PM:
" Nobody likes to be called a bigot. It isn't nice. But discrimination isn't nice is it? LaCrosse has many couples who live together in much the same fashion as man and wife and who are not yet technically married. For some of them, the meanness of the electorate has prevented them from obtaining a marriage license even if they intended do do so. It is bigoted to deny benefits to individuals that you provide to others. Especially when our legal system has been slanted to deny certain individuals the rights of others. "
Jeni wrote on Apr 10, 2007 2:15 PM:
" Congratulations La Crosse! For everyone else who fails to realize that it's 2007 and we're progressing, not regressing, I'm sorry for your pitiful souls. These newly passed benefits (and I quote the article) come from the county board's vote that "ratified two union contracts that extend medical and dental insurance and other benefits to unmarried partners of the opposite or same gender." My suggestion to people who whine and complain, read the entire article first and have your facts correct. Then argue. Secondly, grow-up. People should be allowed to love, live with, be with and at least in La Crosse County now (along with two other local governments), have heath benefits, regardless of the genders of the two people. As stated at the beginning of my comments, it's 2007. It is sad to see some people still living in the dark ages. "
Double Standards wrote on Apr 10, 2007 1:49 PM:
" I express disagreement with a liberal perspective and I am a hate monger?
Why is alright for you to trash the president and this country and still be patriotic?
I disagree with giving benefits to "domestic partners" and I am a biggot?
Defintion of Double Standard-
an ethical or moral code that applies more strictly to one group than to another
I am not a biggot, I just disagree with giving benefits to domestic partners.
"
TO QUESTION?? wrote on Apr 10, 2007 1:48 PM:
" NEWS FLASH: LIFE'S NOT FAIR! "
not just about insurance wrote on Apr 10, 2007 1:30 PM:
" The union contract also allows employees with domestic partners to have paid sick leave to take care of their loved one. It also provides for funeral leave if their partner dies. This is only humane. Why deny these benefits to some yet grant to others?
I work in the insurance industry. Data proves that when the pool of covered lives increases - the risk is spread out more - and the overall cost goes down. Bravo to La Crosse for opening up this pool. We will save money in in the long run because insurance costs will go down. "
To:Question?? wrote on Apr 10, 2007 1:29 PM:
" Again, when I am asked to help financially support this "diversity", it becomes my business. "
Melon Head: wrote on Apr 10, 2007 1:22 PM:
" It's bad enough that we have to pay these exhuberant benefits to the employees but now we have to give them to their boyfriends and girlfriends? Totally unreal!!! You will have more abuse of the system than anyone could imagine. So I work for the County and pick up a gal downtown I can not only offer her a good night but benefits to boot just add your name to my utility bill. This needs to be retracted. "
Wasted emotion.... wrote on Apr 10, 2007 1:08 PM:
" I think that some folks are wasting their worry and frustration on the wrong things that LaCrosse County has done or hasn't done. So there are some people who work and pay a premium for their "spouse"..same sex or not. You feel your tax dollars are wasted? What about the people on unemployment that you are paying for that use your money to buy drugs and drink instead of working. Lets put more energy into those abusing the system vs. those that are actually working for a living and paying the same taxes you do. Most take a urine test for their jobs, why not for unemployment or welfare people. Those that are receiving DPB are working just the same as you are. Lets go after something more unjustified like those leaching off of us who work and pay taxes. "
Altering American History? wrote on Apr 10, 2007 1:04 PM:
" Those that attack domestic partner benefits who claim that marriage should be the requirement for benefits, are the same people who voted against civil unions and marriage for gays and lesbians. Sort of a "Catch-22" but we aren't fooled. Don't let them get married and then simply say, 'you would give them benefits if they were married'. Fairness and decency requires us to provide the same benefits for every employee. "
Fear and Lies wrote on Apr 10, 2007 1:04 PM:
" I can't believe all the fear mongering that is going on surrounding this issue. La Crosse is not the first place to enact this type of health care benefits for same sex or unmarried couples. There have been no problems in any of the other cities and counties that have similar policies. All this talk of roommates taking advantage of the system is simply untrue. "
unohoo one more thing... wrote on Apr 10, 2007 1:02 PM:
" Having acceptance shoved down your throat whether it be religious, polictical, social, or any other is never a pleasant situation. This is a blatant con act as far as I can tell. If we are going to give domestic partners benefits why not extend it to adult children,parents,their connection to the employee is much stronger and far less disputble than the "partner"? "
unohoo TO: Hatred (and the other whiners) wrote on Apr 10, 2007 12:57 PM:
" WHY DON'T YOU DO WHAT THE REST OF US DO WHEN BENEFITS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO OUR "MATES" BUY IT INDEPENDENTLY OR GET ASSISTANCE FROM THE COUNTY!!! Please don't call me a hater or a bigot because I don't think sneaking this or any other significant change in county business in the back door is okay! okay? "
unohoo TO: How Many of You wrote on Apr 10, 2007 12:51 PM:
" I can assure you that if I was aware of the meeting and it's agenda I would personally go. I have gone in the past. I would speak my mind on the issues that I feel my input would matter. This would definitely be one I would speak on in obje
Advertisement
