Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion
Aug. 10, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Domestic partner benefits

For more than a year, officials from Nevada's higher education system have argued that their ability to attract and retain top academics has been compromised by the state's refusal to offer taxpayer-subsidized health insurance to domestic partners.

The policy would extend public employees' generous benefits to unmarried opposite-sex couples as well as same-sex partnerships. And it would reach beyond the university system to all state employees, from DMV clerks to Highway Patrol troopers.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: Professor needs to get with the program
  • LETTERS: Washington loves rewarding failure
  • FROM OUR READERS: We can't do worse than country's current leadership
  • LETTERS: Trickle-down economics is dead
  • EDITORIAL: Tip jar
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shall we save the economy ... or the government?
  • LETTERS: Don't expect district to cut waste
  • EDITORIAL: Sending the right message
  • EDITORIAL: A tiny bit of good news?
  • EDITORIAL: 'A cautionary tale'



    • That won't come cheap. No one can say for certain how much additional funding the already-unstable program might need to expand its risk pool; the Public Employees Benefits Program Board has been told it would cost more than $4 million to cover the first year.

    Alas, now is not the time for state agencies and programs to seek funding enhancements. Gov. Jim Gibbons and lawmakers already have cut about $1 billion from the current two-year budget because of revenue shortfalls, and Gov. Gibbons plans to present the 2009 Legislature with a zero-growth spending plan for the coming biennium.

    On Thursday, the PEBP Board voted 6-2 to delay the introduction of the benefit until better economic times.

    The action was especially disappointing to University of Nevada, Reno professor Jim Richardson, a representative of the Nevada Faculty Alliance -- not just because of the vote to delay, but because board members approached the problem of funding the policy with blinders on. They assumed that only money pulled from the wallets of taxpayers can cover the bill.

    If, in fact, extending health insurance to domestic partners is essential to maintaining a high-quality state government work force, why can't public employees themselves cover the costs through increased premiums?

    Board member Jacque Ewing-Taylor asked how much it would cost the program to offer health benefits to same-sex partners only.

    The answer: an estimated $1.5 million per year, or just $4.50 per month in increased premiums per plan participant.

    "I would be more than happy for my premium to go up by four and a half dollars a month in order to cover this group," Ms. Ewing-Taylor said. "I maintain this is something we need to do for equity's sake."

    Unfortunately, most public employees do not share Ms. Ewing-Taylor's enthusiasm for making nominal sacrifices in tough times. Most private-sector workers are seeing their premium costs increase for unchanged or reduced health insurance benefits. Now they're supposed to provide public servants, who already enjoy superior pay and benefits, with even more goodies?

    This isn't about denying recognition to gay marriages. The state shouldn't be in the business of regulating marriage in the first place.

    This is about making government employees, the highest-paid sector of the state's work force, pay their own way if they want new perks.



    Leave Your Comment 36 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Leslie wrote on August 12, 2008 06:07 AM: bill:

    "i work for the state and do not want to have to pay" my fair share. I want my benefits subsidized. I want more.

    "if you want to insure your" WIFE or kids "then you front the cost, not everyone."

    "it's really not an issue with" those of us who have the benefit subsidized by singles and gays.

    It is an issue for taxpayers who pay your salary and benefits and believe all employees in public or private jobs should be treated equally - equal pay, equal benefits, equal rights.


    bill wrote on August 10, 2008 11:01 PM: i work for the state and do not want to have to pay more for this, i say if you want to insure your partner then you front the cost, not everyone. I have not heard anyone mention this topic and I am in office building with over 200 state employees, its really not an issue with most of us, RJ is stirring it up aagin


    Gays Drop a Bundle on our NV Economy Before Heading Home wrote on August 10, 2008 10:36 PM: Please, read the post below with a similar headline.

    Unfortunately, that money is used to pay for a significant percentage of the infrastructure used by Tim Douglas.

    Word has it that "tim" and "douglas" are both really hot and swing both ways, if they are actually men at all.


    Sad Summerlin wrote on August 10, 2008 10:04 PM: douglas - I can't believe we agree at least on this narrow subject (and we didn't even bring pets into the situation).

    If the benefits to attract good workers is to provide health care etc to the employee, then the State should also allow the employee to nominate an additional beneficiary at their expense, plus and dependents at their expense as well.

    This would truly be a fair and equitable solution to all involved. Therefore, a single person was not contributing additional premiums to cover a fellow employee that may have 2 or 7 additional dependents on their plan as well.

    This would completely erase any cry of unfair behavior towards homesexuals and opposite set domestic partners as well as impose little or no additional expense on the State government. In fact, it may even reduce the budget as spouses may now find their own insurance with their own companies rather than taking the "free" state insurance.

    Where's the leadership in our government addressing THIS issue as a course of saving the budget?


    douglas wrote on August 10, 2008 09:28 PM: instead of "canceling" any current insurance it would seem to be equitable were coverage included if negotiated under some labor contract, for that one employee only. similarly it's unfair were another employee to receive free insurance for additional members of their family.

    let the employee who chooses to make bambinos pay extra premiums into the plan based on the number of additional insureds. same as the citizen who wants a bunch of cars should pay more insurance premiums than a similarly aged, similar driving record citizen with only one car.

    wages and benefits should be equal for either employee.


    Sad Summerlin wrote on August 10, 2008 08:35 PM: If it IS truly about the money...

    Then why doesn't the State cancel spouse and children benefits?

    How much will that save?
    How much will the "single" state employees save by not covering the spouses and children?


    tim wrote on August 10, 2008 08:01 PM: i'm sorry my question offended you,i thought that was pretty reasonable.but then you would be poven wrong.i just asked for information,just like you did.yours is just typical left wing rhetoric.mine was direct.


    Michael Green wrote on August 10, 2008 07:33 PM: Tim, I was just asking a question. I am sorry that you oppose questions being asked, especially when the answer might prove disagreeable to you. Unfortunately, that is all too typical of those on the political right, so it is not necessarily surprising.


    tim wrote on August 10, 2008 06:16 PM: why don't you take a vote with your fellow employees?then you can report back to the r.j.with your results?then you can talk your smack.


    Michael Green wrote on August 10, 2008 05:54 PM: "Unfortunately, most public employees do not share Ms. Ewing-Taylor's enthusiasm for making nominal sacrifices in tough times."

    As a public employee, I am just curious. Where did you get this information? What survey did you conduct? Or did you just make up the information, as you do whenever you have no facts to support your views, or was a news story edited to take the position you wanted and I just happened to miss it?


    Read All Comments