Okay, fine, alla y'all, I won't manage your benefits, just read what ReasonableIntellectual said, that person expressed it much better than I, apparently.

If it is not there now, which it is not, it is an "add". If it was not an addition to what is in place now, why are they discussing it?
.
And I do think an a la carte should be part of the global view of benefits. I realize that was not part of this article, but I want to make a point that when you give people choices in how they want to utilize their insurance coverage, they have skin in the game. They can choose who and how their benefits are to cover. You get X amount of coverage and then for each person you add, it is X amount more in co-pay or however it is implemented.

Frusion: the city isn't 'adding' these benefits. They already exist and are currently provided to those people born heterosexual. The city would simply allow those people born homosexual to receive equal treatment. It's that simple.

If you want to discuss the pros/cons of implementing an 'a la carte' benefits program, that's a different discussion outside the scope of this decision.

No German....you just give each employee a pot of benefit dollars and they spend their chips the way that makes the most sense for them. You can use them for health insurance premiums, 401k, etc. that's fair to everyone.

The argument being made about this policy being a fiscal issue is mostly a red hearing. Sure, the initial implementation of a policy such as this will cost more money. However, not implementing the same such policy in no way guarantees the city will avoid such cost all together.

Here's why. If the city had maintained the status quo, the dependents and spouses of married couples would still be covered. Domestic partners would not. Yet, there is no guarantee that those individuals that would benefit from domestic partnership would continue their employment if the policy remained the same. In the event that they were to leave their positions, the need to replace them would exist.

Now, lets say that the positions held by these individuals must be filled. New employees would be interviewed. To retain the monetary benefit provided from not providing domestic partnership benefits would require the city to now discriminate against Married individuals and those with children. Do we want to do this just for the purpose of saving the taxpayer.

Bottom line, when you begin to argue segregation on the basis of cost, it will ultimately work against your own principles and values.

ReasonableIntellectual, I agree. But I do not agree with just adding benefits to sweeten the package. I believe employers should give the employee choices on how they want their pool of benefits allocated and then everyone is treated the same.

The right thing to do is the moral thing to do, not the greedy thing to do. Depriving one part of an employee group of the benefits enjoyed by another part of an employee group based on their genetics - just so that you keep a few extra dollars to yourself - is the greedy thing. Treating all people as equals is the moral thing. There is one simple rule that can help everyone make moral decisions not clouded by greed: "Treat others as you would like others to treat you."

Why is it the right thing? Based on your opinion it's the right thing? My opinion of the right thing is to manage my tax money with diligence and discipline. By insuring domestic partners I believe the council is sitting around thinking of ways to spend money. This is not going to make Janesville a utopia people will flock to due to adding this benefit. There are other much better solutions to building an attractive benefit plan than throwing something like this at the wall. 401 matching and individual choices of insurance coverage are somewhere I would recommend. This is nothing against domestic partnerships, it is just letting people choose how they want to spend their allotment of the benefit kitty. Unless you are the US government there needs to be limits to spending money you don't have.

Excuse me ... not "decreasing our police force", just "not increasing our police force where warranted"........ In any case, the argument is the same. "Doing the right thing" depends on (a) whose idea of "right" is being used, and (b) affordability. Personally I think that "doing the right thing" means responsibly managing the budget to ensure that City services remain available and affordable to the taxpayers.

steffffffff....yeah, that's it, when you want to avoid the financial reason just call someone a name. How could there be any other reason? No one else should have any other opinion. We bow to your superior intellect. One solution is to just give insurance coverage to the employee, as saxcat suggested. No relatives, live-ins, etc. that would solve the offended feelings of some people. Or just cover the whole family, grandparents, in- laws, cousins, nannies, etc. After all we are awash in funds right now. Money there just looking to be spent. Glad steffffff doesn't manage my budget!

Q.E.D. can also be used to ridicule the specious reasoning of another person by mockingly attaching it to the end of a poor argument, which was not in fact successfully demonstrated or presented.

(I'm done.)

I looked up Q.E.D. = Latin for "which had to be demonstrated."

Quod erat demonstrandum (Q.E.D.)

And to answer the, "why now? in a recession?"
The answer is because it is the right thing to do, regardless of the time, as as legal and public officials, I fully support the city council members in following that. It should have been done a long time ago, and people shouldn't have to "wait out" a recession for their basic rights. Other funds will have to suffer.

Agreed, this is an obvious issue.
If you honestly think this is a SOLELY financial issue, then all city benefits for married spouses need to be cut NOW, if budget balancing is all you're after.

To think that marriage is a legal standing that deserves extra benefits over domestic partnerships, and also understand that marriage is not an equal-opportunity-legal standing, means that you are homophobic. That's it.

Just stopping........no, we add benefits, etc when the economy turns around and we have more revenues. We don't add grandparents, aunts, uncles etc to health insurance, we don't increase pension plans, we don't remodel govt office space, etc. Get the picture? Health insurance premiums go up every year so this is not a one time expenditure that will even remain a constant in the budget.

Domestic partnerships for same-sex couples have been recognized in Wisconsin since August 3, 2009. One of the reasons we elect leaders is to make fair and impartial decisions - regardless of whether these decisions go against your personal bias or prejudice, they are still the right thing to do. How we treat each other is the measure of a community, and I'm glad to see that our City Council intends to treat all people equally.

Do ya think? Do ya really think that someone who has an offer for a decent job in Janesville will turn it down because of domestic partner health insurance? There are many good people out there looking for jobs. Janesville has not exactly had a laundry list of job openings lately and probably not for the foreseeable future. It's a buyer's market for municipalities looking for good employee candidates. I agree with others that this is not about respect. It's about benefits--I wants.

I think Liebert has had a lot of influence from his liberal cronies and wants to see Janesville in the liberal progressive category. Not that this is not a noble pursuit in a perfect limitless world. It's just that Liebert and his type just don't understand boundaries. We're talking about taxpayers' money. Let these domestic partners find their own independent insurance. In fact, I would be happy to sit down with them and find quotes for individual insurance. I'll even buy 'em a cup of coffee.

So now we pay for all just because of a few. Still think best option is when you can become a "union" then get beneies. Married for women/man couples.

So you can shack up with a boyfriend/ girlfriend not of same sex and get insurance. WHY get married at all then?
Next they'll get a tx credit for shaking up???

DonnaW - so what you're saying is, all people should only be treated equally once we can afford it? Until that time comes, only hetero people can have these benefits? Even though us gays pay our taxes just like everyone else?

Perhaps you and all of the other "adults in the room" could make a chart and determine what type of person gets what benefit and when?

Never forget- Leibert and others on the City Council find it very easy to spend other peoples money.

But wait..."it's not about benefits - it's about R-E-S-P-E-C-T." Or at least that what I kept hearing. In the end, though, it really IS about benefits - isn't it? T

The Janesville city council should stop wasting time on this issue (among others that they regularly seem to chatter away endlessly about sans decision). They have none of their own money - just taxpayers - to spend. Act like it!

Stop. Please just...S-T-O-P!

Interested readers should google Appleton and Green Bay on domestic partner health insurance. If I read it correctly in the Appleton newspaper (you can verify) the city estimates it will initially cost another $100,000 for the first year of implementation. Then, I ask, where does it go from there?

Interested readers should google Appleton and Green Bay on domestic partner health insurance. If I read it correctly in the Appleton newspaper (you can verify) the city estimates it will initially cost another $100,000 for the first year of implementation. Then, I ask, where does it go from there?

Some day the adults in the room will make the decisions and based on financial resources the answer to adding benefits or any other new expenses is no, no and no! When the economy picks up and revenues increase then look at these new expenses. And saxcat's idea of paying for one person's benefit is the fairest. With Obamacare coming down the pike let the rest of whoever is in the household go there for coverage.

Thank you!

....moot point.....

They were not considering decreasing the police force. They were talking about holding the level of Sworn officers to the same amount as this past year.

As for the cost of this measure, Healthcare costs are hard to predict because people could get married, have children, become critically ill. All of these are paid for by the cities healthcare coverage. No one complains that the healthcare coverage costs goes up because someone had a baby.

It might all be a mute point anyway. There may not be anyone currently who qualifies.

Seriously? You're considering decreasing our police force because we can't afford another officer, but this somehow makes sense to you? Six of you, at that? Am I hallucinating?