39 Comments - Anon - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 9:38 am: I think it was more than budget that kept JBT from offering health insurance to same sex couples. If she made this move, it would have been the straw that broke the camels back for whatever righ wingers who voted for her. It was the right thing for Alexi to do. He continues to kick butt in his new job. Hopefully, he will support the governor’s efforts to provide healthcare to everybody, regardless of sexual preference of state employment. - Morning Person - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 9:50 am: No news here. This was not unexpected, as the entire office has been sub-contracted to the Jesse Jackson Jr. organization. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 9:55 am: So, if you can live on a Treasurer employee’s meal ticket for a year the taxpayers will pick up your health costs? What kind of relationship does he want us to finance? How long does a couple need to be together to be considered common-law? WHAT COUPLE? Drop the “same-sex” line and ask yourself if this is fair to Illinois taxpayers? It isn’t. Giannoulias is being generous with other people’s money in order to score political points. Typical politician. He isn’t a superstar, he is just another guy who doesn’t take into consideration the value of what taxpayers cough up daily. Here we are stumbling all over ourselves wanting to look open minded and sweet without considering jsut what it is this politician is doing. Suckers. - wndycty - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 9:57 am: Good move. Not sure what they comment at 9:50 AM was supposed to mean. - Lula May - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 9:57 am: I think Anon is wrong. Judy was always a defender of Gay Rights. Judy is also a very logical person knowing this is a very slippery slope. This state cannot afford universal healthcare. If you offer healthcare to same sex why not everyone ? Because the taxpayer does not want to pay for it. Plain and simple. - Spotted - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 10:07 am: “The office will offer medical, dental and vision benefits to same-sex partners of employees who have lived together for at least a year and share financial responsibilities.” Agreed, good move. Since I live with my brother, and we are both males, how do I get my same sex benefits assigned to him? He’s not working right now and can use the coverage. - Captain America - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 10:10 am: Absolutely, it is entirely appropriate to grant same sex coupes the smae benfits as heterosexual married couples. Despite his inexperience and the bad press assoicated with his father’s bank/Alexi’s banking career, he appears to be doing a good job as State Treasurer. His future political prospects look very bright. The Democratic Party has a trio of bright and shining stars in Madigan, Hynes, and Gianoullias. Thsi makes me optimistic about the future of the Democartic Party in Illinois despite the current executive and legislative branch dysfunction. - Ken in Aurora - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 10:12 am: It’s a good move, but would be moot if we could finally get same-sex marriage passed… - GOP - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 10:12 am: I am a pro-life, fairly conservative Republican and I see this as no big deal. The right wing of our party needs to get over it. There are gay people in the world…who cares?? - Fan of the Game - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 10:18 am: Can’t understand how one state office can offer such benefits and another chooses not. Either all state offices offer these benefits or none do. - Not So Fast - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 10:34 am: If JBT were truly concerned about the budget, why not take the coverage away from straights? That would save a lot more money. Her excuse doesn’t pass the smile test. - Cassandra - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 10:36 am: I agree with GOP. Lula May–Wrong. The state CAN afford universal health care. We just prefer to use the money for other things like patronage jobs, huge pay raises for Emil Jones’ relatives, legislator raises, lavishly overfunded state contracts for savvy contributors, and on and on. The state currently pays about $7 billion in our money every year to pay for health insurance for current state employees, for retired state employees, for Medicaid/Allkids-eligible Illinoisians. If that money were managed properly (it isn’t) it wouldn’t cost that much more in relative terms to cover the 1.4 million uninsured adults in Illinois. Adding same sex partners is fine–but it doesn’t come close to going far enough. It’s our money. All Illinoisians should have access to affordable (and state employee health insurance is very, very affordable) health care. Why only the employees and their families? - zatoichi - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 10:36 am: Thought state benefits were for all employees, not department decisions? Seems like an OK move. - Wumpus - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 10:40 am: It was the right thing. We can’t use the arguement that they can’t get married to ban them from legal benefits. Every other state agency is doing it, so this is only fair. My question is how do people qualify? - Skirmisher - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 10:55 am: No, it was the wrong thing to do. If the policy simply allowed an employee to extend benefits to any common-law partner, regardless of sex, then I would grudgingly accept that it simply reflects to overall moral decline of our times and let it go at that. But by specifying that it is for the benefit of gays only, the treasurer diminishes himself to just another politician pandering to a minority wing of the Democratic Party at public expense. He just lost a few points of respect in my eyes. - gg - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 10:58 am: Health benefits “were” to encourage couples to have children. Now it is just about votes. Of course everyone is entitled to health coverage … unless you are illegal, then you have ten children and take them to the ER. This is just one more issue where the media ignores the 2 ton gorrilla and puts the focus on a nonsequetor. Then the politicos grandstand and there is not a dimes worth of difference between the left and right when it comes to action. At least JBT spoke her mind. The current guy is just a pattsie. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 11:11 am: “gg” wrote…====Health benefits “were” to encourage couples to have children. ==== Huh? - Team Sleep - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 11:40 am: I read this morning that “touching” was banned in a middle school in Virginia. Coupled with this news story, it seems like the P.C. Police are out in full force. I do have a problem with this, and it’s not because I’m a bigot. The state is up to its eyeballs in debt and obligations and God only knows when a budget will be passed. However, Alexi is offering this nugget to a cross-section of his employees and comes across as a hero to a minority group. But since most people don’t read the news and probably don’t care, this will mostly go unnoticed. - ZC - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 11:59 am: If or when the state finally legalizes gay marriage, then I would agree that these programs be discontinued. Get a ring, folks. Until then, Alexi’s policy is the proper moral response. You don’t discriminate against people based on who they are, and the anecdotal evidence suggesting homosexuality’s genetic is overwhelming. Now courts should not rule based on such evidence, but elected officials can and should. If voters have a problem with Alexi’s decision, they can let him know about it next election. They won’t. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 12:32 pm: Cassandra; only another $6 or 7 billion - gg - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 12:40 pm: Rich, My understanding of history is (1950’s) … health benefits were offered to the wife and children of employees as a way of encouraging family cohesion & growth. I do not believe the current employment environment is the same. Corporations do not find it to their benefit to support health benefits to families. That is a small part of the reason our reproduction rates are falling. The 2 ton gorrilla no one is talking about is a health care(doctors & unions) and insurance industry (shareholders) that just want their end. So the uninsured go to the ER and no one talks about small steps that the doctors (standarsized charges), the unions (work asignment flexablity) and the insurance industry (Single Form / Single Payor) could take. We are very selfish Chicagoans. - Underdog - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 1:00 pm: Can anyone who says they oppose this because of the budget impact actually tell me how many employees the State Treasurer’s office has or how many people in other departments have taken advantage of this? In other words - what the actual budget impact might be? Because it just sounds like you’re objecting on social grounds and grasping for cover. - gg - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 2:08 pm: Underdog, That is exactly my point. The Treasurer’s office has 174 employees. The politico’s and the pro homosexual/equal rights group boast gee we are so great and powerful. They think they are great minded, but they are really small minded self rightous, selfish people. BTW, I fall into this trap all the time myself. - Bill Baar - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 2:11 pm: Oak Park did this years ago and it was mostly symbolic. One women applied though citing her disablied adult child as her partner. Oak Park turned her down i.e. the Village discriminated on her choice of partner. She was the one person working for OP who really needed the coverage. You base benefits on marriage (or partnership) and you have to discriminate one way or the other. The interesting thing was how the backers of same-sex partnership benefits were so quick to dismiss this women’s plight. It was a question for National Health insurance instead… …that was a different symbol. - Cassandra - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 2:23 pm: Steve– Based on what data? It’s still worth it, given the other things the state spends our money on, but the state now covers about 2-3 million people (employees, retirees, Medicaid). Would it really cost double to add access for about 1.4 million adults, many or most of whom would be able to pay partial premiums, and some of whom would choose to self insure. I’m not talking about a single payer government system. I’m talking about guaranteed access with the state providing a sliding scale backup to lower-income adults. - cermak_rd - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 2:36 pm: I’ve worked for 3 big corporations in the past 15 years (one of the moves was due to a merger) and in every case they extended this coverage as a matter of course to their gay employees. So the Treasurer’s office isn’t exactly being a trailblazer here! - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 3:26 pm: this was a strategic ERROR on TEAM GIANNOULIAS’ PART. although no specific numbers were provided insofar as the fiscal impact it would have, YOU DON’T MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT LIKE THIS IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUDGET CRISIS. i agree with his proposal, but his rookie staff made an error on this one, esp. if HE’S TRYING TO POSITION HIMSELF AS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE. - A Citizen - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 3:26 pm: Rich - *** 1:47 pm *** They’re across the border and have arrived safely. I am very happy for you as I can tell the intense concern you have had. While it’s NONE of my business, could you elaborate so I have a clearer understanding, please. Thanks. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 3:29 pm: I agree with the post above. Giannoulias should have waited until after the 08 budget was agreed to then announce the same sex benefits coverage. Making the announcement at a time when all eyes are on the budget stalemate in Springfield was a bad choice. Giannoulias won’t take any hits for this, but it shows that his staff aren’t making the right strategic moves. - Dago Red - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 3:46 pm: True to the democrats priciples…doing away with the once great america we all grew up in and loved,…this is TOTAL discrimination if the same benefits are not extended to non married HETROSEXUAL couples. Why should only non married same sex couples get the bennies. Oh well, the democratic chant is DEATH TO AMERICA, and it is possible in our lifetime as long as dummycrats rule. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 3:56 pm: DR, I think the difference is that non-married heterosexual couples are allowed to get married, while homosexual couples are not. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 4:31 pm: - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 3:56 pm: DR, I think the difference is that non-married heterosexual couples are allowed to get married, while homosexual couples are not. ———————————————– Homosexuals can marry legally, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. j/k! - Cassandra. - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 8:32 pm: We spend more than 8 billion to provide health care coverage for fewer than 2 million people. The question of whether covering all the uninsured makes sense is a policy one. I would tend to agree, but the State can’t currently pay timely for what it already owes health care providers. It would take a really big revenue increase. To his credit, the Governor has proposed such a revenue increase, the first time since Illinois First that Illinois has actually acknowleged that big new programs require big new revenues. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 8:49 pm: I unintentionally somehow made the 8:32 post under Cassandra’s name I apologize. - zatoichi - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 9:06 pm: Steve, Is that a secret identity revelation? - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 9:13 pm: You socialist health care people bore me. If you want to pay for socialized health care spend your own money. You’re so good at demanding everyone else’s money. I work hard and provide my families insurance and I don’t intend to pay for others who have their priorities screwed up. This message is for you Cassandra. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 18, 07 @ 11:53 pm: Excuse me, Anon is Medicare socialized medicine? If you believe it is, why don’t you just say so under your real name? - Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Jun 19, 07 @ 7:19 am: Heteros can shack up with someone of the opposite sex for 20 years and not be eligible for family coverage, yet gays need only shack up for a year. Yet another example of a politically correct double standard gone insane. Our government(s) always seem to go from one extreme to the other: from sodomy laws, to giving gays more “rights” than the average, tax paying working Joe. Makes me wish I was a gay, female, minority Hari Krishna … I could like like a king (queen?) at everyone else’s expense, while chastising them on how I am an oppressed “minority.” - AFSCME - Tuesday, Jun 19, 07 @ 1:12 pm: The contract states: Article III Section 1 “Both the Employer and the Union agree not to discriminate against any employee on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, creed, religion, color, marital or parental status…” Not offering “life partners” of gays health care seems to be discrimination due to the “sexual orientation” clause. Not offering “Shacking up” Heterosexuals health care in light of offering it to Same-Sex Partners would seem to be discrimination based on the “Marital Status” clause. Some litigious person is going to drag this through the courts some day. It will be interesting to see how it turns out! Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.