PDA

View Full Version : City Council in the NEWS



Sandra
09-11-2012, 03:29 PM
Looks like City Council is famous now. Or maybe that's infamous - they put off a vote that would have given health benefits to gay partners.

What I'd like to know is how this affects non married straight partners - if a gay couple can have benefits, shouldn't an unmarried straight couple be able to get them, as well?

And, does anyone know why (or care to speculate why) City Council put off that vote? People are assuming it's an anti-gay thing, but I wonder if maybe it's a legal thing.

Thoughts?

large
09-11-2012, 05:20 PM
Redundant Thread . . . I already posted a start to this particular subject on the "City Council's Spending agenda" because that's what it is about . . . Go there . .

Sandra
09-12-2012, 08:07 AM
This is more than about spending - it's about peoples rights.

large
09-12-2012, 09:25 AM
No, it's about MONEY . . Somebody else's . .

In the rest of the world we live in, 99% of the corporations and businesses that offer health benefit packages pay only for the principal employee, not his spouse or family. That, usually is paid for, out of pocket, by the employee while getting a "group" discount as a member through his/her employment. The Fruits, Nuts and Flakes want the taxpayer to pay for their health care which is so high they can't/won't pay for it . . And it's their lifestyle that causes it to be so high . .

Gay's (especially Males) have a much higher incidence of AIDS and it's co-inciding illnesses than does any other segment of society, either here or anyplace else in the world . . And the cocktail of drugs that are required, as well as general physician's care is far more expensive than for an average healthy human being . .

On the "Rights" thing. Perhaps, but not "Constitutional", thus, it's not the taxpayer's problem . . If you choose to gamble when swapping body fluids, then you ought to exercise the basic cautions or pay for the potential treatment that you may need if everything doesn't work out . .

It isn't my problem and I don't want it to become one . .


And . . howcome it is, you can declare a thread "redundant" and either merge or delete it while we can't, and we seem to have exactly no say in that . .

This thread IS redundant to the one that has been in the forum for over two years . . . And it discusses ALL the City Council's issues, which are . . . ?

SPENDING!

Sandra
09-12-2012, 10:10 AM
Well, my question is this: If they allow benefits for gays, then must they also allow them for straight people who are living together without benefit of a certificate of civil union? The reason I ask is that homosexual unions are not legalized in Colorado, so to allow them benefits without allowing benefits for unmarried straight couples living together would be an act of discrimination. I wonder whether this is why City Council tabled the vote on that particular item.

Sandra
09-12-2012, 10:18 AM
And . . howcome it is, you can declare a thread "redundant" and either merge or delete it while we can't, and we seem to have exactly no say in that . .

Something about being an Administrator, Large.

If you're interested in a moderator position (it's strictly voluntary - I can't afford to pay anyone) you or any other interested participants are welcome to send me a private message or email about that for consideration. Moderators have the ability to do those things.

Meanwhile, the reason why this isn't redundant is that your thread focuses on spending, I didn't want to focus on that in this thread, I wanted to focus on the civil aspects of their decisions as opposed to the financial. For example, for the purposes of this particular topic, it would be how people's rights are affected (or not). By creating a separate thread both aspects of the topic can be discussed without losing focus of the site of that particular thread. :)

Sandra
09-12-2012, 10:25 AM
PS - Everyone here always has a say - by the way - whether you have the "power" to act on it may be a different story, but I pay attention to suggestions, none the less. So don't feel bad - all forum participants are important here and I'm not here to lord over anyone. Everyone's thoughts and ideas are important to me unless they involve booze or sex.

large
09-12-2012, 11:34 AM
Well, my question is this: If they allow benefits for gays, then must they also allow them for straight people who are living together without benefit of a certificate of civil union? The reason I ask is that homosexual unions are not legalized in Colorado, so to allow them benefits without allowing benefits for unmarried straight couples living together would be an act of discrimination. I wonder whether this is why City Council tabled the vote on that particular item.

A point, perhaps. But that, also has nothing to do, particularily, with "Rights", but a whole lot to do with legal issues . . As you say, in Colorado, neither "Civil Unions" nor "Same Sex Marriages" are recognized as "legal" . . Thus, "Partners" aren't included as a legal definition for spousal rights or benefits . .

However, back to the Employer/Employee Health benefit I spoke of earlier. IF . . you are an employee getting your health care insurance from your employer, if your partner, better half, Boyfriend/Girlfriend are living in the same home/address, as far as I know, if you pay for it out of your pocket, most plans allow that person to be included . . Now, it may be different threough different companies and plans, but before my wife and I became that formally, I was insured through her job policy, although we had to pay about $600 per month, it was a lot cheaper than to take out an individual policy. By about half . .

In the case of the City Council's decision, my information (and that was confirmed by an article in yesterday's Chieftain) was that the refusal and tabling was about the cost. Which was what I brought up in the post about their spending . . One would think that anyone with half a brain would know that health insurance for gays is expensive, and group plans are generally discounted because 95% of those covered are healthy people of median working ages . . and considering the statistic that about 2-3% of the American Population is gay, and assuming that most employee groups maintain that average, doubling the number of gays being covered, should, double the cost and risk . .

Which brings me to ask, once more, What procedure does a politician go through to remove the part of the brain that dictates common sense once they attain public office?

Marc.N
09-13-2012, 02:27 PM
I want complete benefits for my domestic partner, my cat.

large
09-13-2012, 02:39 PM
You can get them . . Animal (or Pet) health insurance is available, and it's actually cheaper than you'd think . .

It just depends on who you want to pay for it . . .


But, Y'might give the Pueblo City Council a shot, they seem to be taken in by the unreal and unreasonable . . Just give it a fancy and non-descriptive name . . they may never know what they passed . .

large
09-22-2012, 01:17 PM
Here's another problem with Group Health insurance for unmarried "Partners" . .

If you're gay and living with someone of the same sex, and are eligible for Employer paid insurance, why aren't "Hetreosexual Partners" or a man and woman living together eligible for the same benefits . . ?

A little discrimination there? Actually, a whole lot of discrimination there . . .

Sandra
09-22-2012, 02:36 PM
I was told by Councilwoman Sandy Daff that this is to make up for the portion of the law that disallows gays to marry. She explained it in such a way that it made sense, but I still see the perspective for a discrimination suit if someone wanted to take it that far. However, we know that gays feel the same way since their sexuality is now a protected civil class, so civilly if they are unable to unite then there needs to be some concession made for them.

BUT the way the concession happens - again - there is still room for some discrimination. There are a lot of heterosexual couples living together who can't marry for whatever reason - usually economical - or who choose not to - and they are unable to put their partners on benefits or speak for their partners to physicians without a signed release - they full well know the rules and still choose to live together rather than being married - so how do all of these laws affect them?

I've known elderly siblings who live together in order to help take care of each other (nothing incestuous, don't get any ideas) - and they share incomes and shopping but can't put each other on health plans. My girls' father doesn't live with us - he lives with his mother and takes care of her, she's elderly and very disabled - and needs someone to take care of her - he can't put her on his benefits. Yet he can put the girls on them even though he doesn't have custody of them and they don't live with him. So there seem to be a lot of things that are unfair going on - I think everyone can easily claim they're being discriminated against in one form or another.

Most people find ways to work through these difficulties and go on about their business. But it won't surprise me to see this kind of thing get challenged as discriminatory.

large
09-24-2012, 07:51 AM
I was told by Councilwoman Sandy Daff that this is to make up for the portion of the law that disallows gays to marry. She explained it in such a way that it made sense,

Bullsh*t! You're (or Sandy Daff, actually) speaking of "REPARATIONS" . . Or . . Gee, those old conservative people were mean to you oddballs so we, the Pueblo City Council, are going to make it up to you in our own little way. At the expense of the taxpayer . . of course . .

Again, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your house, just don't ask me to subsidise it . .

And if the gays can be subsidized for having partners then of course, so should all other unmarried couples. That's just plain common sense . .

And yes, it will bring lawsuits. Probably more than this Council ever dreamed of . .

Loren Swelk
09-25-2012, 10:24 PM
Let's see...the city is without a City Manager, they are paying an AWOL planner/ex-planning director/ex city manager they refuse to talk about and the city attorney has resigned. Cue up the theme song from Titanic.

large
09-26-2012, 06:35 AM
Let's see...the city is without a City Manager, they are paying an AWOL planner/ex-planning director/ex city manager(with a limited amount of working time[100 days per yr]) they refuse to talk about and the city attorney has resigned. Cue up the theme song from Titanic.


This has proven to be a very undecisive bunch . . They're starting to make the last Council look like "Supermen" . . .

But one might expect that, since you have a nearly all Democrat group, mostly potential "Spendaholics", with no money . .

Sandra
09-26-2012, 06:41 AM
Loren, the City Attorney was woo'd by Colorado Springs. He's now their assistant city attorney - they offered him $20,000 a year more than their last one got - which is a lot more than he was getting here to begin with - so he followed the money.