Michigan Votes Forum

This is good.  I don't particularly care if a private business wants to do this, but government shouldn't - and can't afford to - be a trendsetter here.

 Trendsetter?  If it was bargained on, it should be extended.  Or, if we can't afford it, let's take away benefits from everyone.    Imagine service at the Secretary of State after that.

As someone who didn't have health insurance for 2 years while I was unemployed, I wouldn't wish that kind of stress on any one.  One only needs to look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to know that basic family protection is the most fundamental goal.

Besides, if 25% of the affected public employees leave for private business, it'll end up costing more in retraining and lost experience than medical coverage would be for the whole group.

Why is the taxpayer funding ANY government parther/spouse benefits?

 I am totally against allowing state employees to have the power to provide their domestic partners (whoever they may be, e.g. boy/girlfriend, buddy, stranger, etc..).

Also, as an Independent I am tired of seeing the Democrats casting their votes to please the unions instead of pleasing all of the people they represent.

Senator Warren’s statement, in which Senators Whitmer and Gregory concurred, is as follows:
I rise to state my strong objection to House Bill No. 4770. I am deeply concerned about the impact that this legislation will have on Michigan families. I firmly believe that a family is always stronger when health insurance is available to everyone in the household. I strongly maintain that our public employers should have the right to offer domestic-partner benefits to their employees. 

In addition to the discriminatory nature of this bill and its companion, House Bill No. 4771, I believe that these bills stand in the way of Michigan’s economic growth by diminishing our ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. Our most successful private sector businesses consider the extension of health care benefits to domestic-partners a priority, and our public employers should be given the freedom to do the same.
I encourage my colleagues to vote “no” on this discriminatory and economically-challenging legislation.

 Democrats are in favor of this bill because they don't care about the expenditure and costs.  As long as someone else is paying, they are for it.. Pathetic isn't it. 

Do you know of ANY governmental entity that doesn't provide health insurance to spouses??????  Also, even when domestic partner coverage is offered, it isn't as affordable as that for a spouse.  Why?  Because the benefit is taxed as income as a fringe benefit rather than deductible as a health insurance premium.  I also don't see why marriage should be preferred over domestic partnership, it is archaic and outdated.