Tax Breaks to Expire  |   Home  |   Porters of Racine to Close

Mandate Friday

The Democrats’ effort to increase insurance costs are going into effect tomorrow. 

Young adults can stay on their parents’ insurance longer, and birth control costs must be covered for those looking to avoid having any kids at all, under new laws that take effect Friday in Wisconsin.

Also starting in the new year, state workers and employees at the University of Wisconsin can receive domestic partner health insurance and other benefits. The new mandate that insurance plans cover autism will take effect for most on Friday when group policies are renewed. That law change started in November, but most policy holders won’t start paying for it until now.

The new insurance mandates were approved by the Democratic-controlled Legislature and Gov. Jim Doyle this year. Advocates who pushed for requiring birth control and autism coverage argued it was over due, even though the new mandates are expected to increase costs for all policy holders.

Posted by Owen at 1135 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. What the f__k doe Cubic Zirconnia Jim care? He’s blowin’ this gig as soon as his term’s over.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2009 at 1408 hrs
   
   
   

2. The insurance deal is really not much of a deal for the parents. The full cost of an additional single insurance plan is added on to your total income for tax purposes. While the insurance company gets nothing to reimburse them, the government get a very nice tax payment out the whole deal.

   We looked into it for our 24 year old. Turns out we can’t afford the “free” insurance because of the high taxes we would be required to pay. Thanks for nothing again Diamond Jim

   This governor reminds me of the Onceler from Dr Seuss’s “The Lorax”. He’s used up all the money and resources that Wisconsin has (the Onceler used up all the truffula trees) and now he is packing his things and leaving his mess for us to clean up (like the brown barbaloots in the Lorax). Hmp. I always knew that Mr. Geisel had a bit of prophet in him.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2009 at 2114 hrs
   
   
   

3. The domestic partnership coverage was critical for UW-Madison, which for many years has been the only Big Ten school without this important recruiting and faculty retention tool.  Not sure that the benefit needed to be extended to all state workers, but it is critical for the university to have it.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2009 at 2207 hrs
   
   
   

4. but it is critical for the university to have it.

   Oh please, give it a rest. If you are trying to tell me that there would be some mass exodus of gay professors who would leave those cushy tenured jobs, then I think you are a few marbles short of a bagful. It’s very doubtful that anyone would leave, or that some super qualified gay professor would choose another university over that issue and that would send the university of the Peoples Republic into an academic tailspin. No, I’m quite sure that the lavish pay and benefits and the easy hours will continue to attracts plenty of professors without domestic partner benefits.

   I also rather doubt that many parents have ever said ” Boy, I’d sure love to send my child to the UW School of Engineering, but that school just doesn’t have enough gay professors for me.” If any parents do actually think that way, then I’d just as soon they send their kids off to UC Berkeley.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2009 at 2302 hrs
   
   
   

5. In other words, when it comes to putting your grown-up kid on your health care policy, the government wants to treat your kid like a domestic partner or any other family member you might be allowed to include that isn’t a spouse or a dependent child.  The horror of equal treatment!

   I’ll make you a deal - I’ll gladly support you adding your kid without counting the value of the coverage as imputed income if you’ll do the same for other members of a household.

   Oh, and just for giggles, I’ll throw in the conservative argument too, which I believe would involve telling your 24-year-old kid to get a real job, pay for his/her own insurance, and stop living on mommy and daddy’s dime.  Of course, I have no idea of the particulars of your situation, but everyone else around here paints with big, underinformed brushes so I thought I’d give it a try.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 01, 2010 at 0448 hrs
   
   
   

6. TFG, recruitment and retention of faculty members at any university represents the free market system in operation.  What about this concept is difficult for you to grasp?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 01, 2010 at 0737 hrs
   
   
   

7. Well, firstly, my point was that the health care for kids up to 27 was really kind of worthless because of the high cost… a cost which is fully born by the insurance company, paid for by the recipients, and yet the fee is collected solely by the government that incurred no additional costs in the first place. It’s more of a tax gimmick than anything else. If providing affordable health care is really the reason for the insurance idea, then why include a VERY hidden tax in it that most people would not notice until it was too late? Personally, I’m fine with my kid continuing on his employers insurance policy and paying for it himself. I’m also fine with not having to provide health care for domestic partners.

   As far as health care goes, I’d love to see the US adopt one of the very forward thinking Republican health exchange reform proposals. That way each persons health security would be placed in their own hands rather than the foolish plan we are about to have forced on us, or the patchwork of unintelligent laws and plans currently available to us.

   @ Rational Observer: No government mandate is the free market in action. Hers is a concept for you… we can easily live without the infinitesimal number of professors that might not take a job in Wisconsin because of no domestic partner benefits. There are plenty more fish in that barrel. The citizens here voted on having no domestic partnership laws that are similar to marriage. This rule certainly fits that description. Since most people voted no, we should respect that….shouldn’t we?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 01, 2010 at 0817 hrs
   
   
   

8. TFG—you’re correct.

   The UW can recruit a helluvalot of PhD profs w/o offering extra bennies….except that certain department chairs and other “influential people” WANT to recruit homosexuals and found that they couldn’t get them w/o extra bennies.

   It was never, ever, a matter of “most qualified;” it was always a matter of “most qualified homosexual.”

   Posted by dad29 on January 01, 2010 at 1225 hrs
   
   
   

9. What a surprise.  Both Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dummer both fail to grasp that this is an issue.  When every other Big Ten university can offer the benefit, it is critical that the Madison campus be able to do so as well.  This may not be an issue at a middle-of-the-pack university like Marquette, but it most asuredlyis an issue atthe top tier universities like Wisconsin.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2010 at 1313 hrs
   
   
   

10. When every other Big Ten university can offer the benefit, it is critical that the Madison campus be able to do so as well.

    No necessarily, RO.  Every organization offers a benefits package to attract the talent they want.  UW could offer some other benefit, like access to a UW vehicle or a housing allowance or whatever, to make their total compensation package more competitive without offering this particular benefit.  Given that this benefit only applies to a minority, wouldn’t the money be better spent enhancing the entire package?  A “better” benefits package is different for different people and is not always just matching the other guy’s offering. 

    As I’ve said in the past, I am not opposed to domestic partner benefits.  If a company wants to offer them, fine.  It’s not something I look for in my benefits package.  I oppose UW and the state offering them because it is another benefit for taxpayer-funded workers that we just can’t afford right now.

    Posted by Owen on January 03, 2010 at 1332 hrs
    
    
    

11. Critical? No, not really. Only a tiny fraction of people would need such a benefit. I’m guessing that there have not been more than a handful of people who used that as a reason to seek employment elsewhere. I’m also guessing that there is no shortage of people who are interested in the cushy benefits associated with those jobs.

    Dad29 is correct. This is all about diversity and politically correct eyewash, and not at all about hiring quality professors. I rather doubt that given the choice between an experienced, well published, highly credentialed publicly conservative professor and a brand new new homosexual one with no teaching experience, the usual suspects at UW (and Rational Observer as well) would take the one that makes them feel diverse… now wouldn’t they?

    Go on, admit it. You’ll feel better. The really funny part is that if diversity was truly a goal, they’d have to offer additional benefits to conservative professors. Homosexual ones are not lacking…. it’s conservatives that are under-represented at UW-Madison.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2010 at 1335 hrs
    
    
    

12. Quite the display of gross ignorance on display here.  This has nothing to do with “diversity” or any other eyewash and everything do to with recruiting—and keeping—the best people.  Here’s an example of a professor who left—and took his federal research money with him! 

    
    RESEARCHER QUITS UW, CITES PARTNER BENEFITS
    ENGINEER BROUGHT IN $3.4 MILLION SINCE 2000.(METRO)

    By Ryan J. Foley
    Associated Press
    August 24, 2006

    
    A promising University of Wisconsin-Madison researcher who has won millions of dollars in grants says he is leaving the school, citing its lack of health insurance benefits for his domestic partner.

    Rob Carpick, associate professor of engineering, said he will depart for the University of Pennsylvania, which offers domestic partner benefits, at the end of the year. He’s taking with him a research portfolio that since 2000 has won $3.4 million in grants from the National Science Foundation, branches of the U.S. military ...

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2010 at 2006 hrs
    
    
    

13. Ryan was part of a team that brought in that money, and likely all of it would have been brought in without him.

    Posted by Smeety on January 03, 2010 at 2053 hrs
    
    
    

14. “Ryan” was the reporter, Smeety!  Karpick was the leader of the team and took the money with him.  This is just one example of the damage done to the University of Wisconsin without access to the domestic partner benefits which all other Big Ten universities were able to provide before we caught up.

    I am no fan of Governor Doyle, but fixing this inequity is one of his positive accomplishments while in office.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2010 at 0732 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.