tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post8354546285356195841..comments2023-10-28T04:06:59.629-05:00Comments on Plaisted Writes: SICK OVER SICK LEAVEMike Plaistedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18184502941014520240noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post-61928457189100950602006-11-30T21:22:00.000-06:002006-11-30T21:22:00.000-06:00You know, Anony, we need to stop meeting like this...You know, Anony, we need to stop meeting like this.<br /><br />Fine, your a Dem. (Sorry about the Scooter thing, just guessing.) Fine, you think the sick leave thingee is too much priviledge for our legislators, who don't get much else for hauling their ass around the state to sit in meetings with Mike Ellis. Fine, you've got some other idea to make as many people as possible covered in health insurance. Or not.<br /><br />Great. Is my world "pretend" because I blog? Or do I blog because my world is pretend? Not really sure. But the fact is: I don't live in a pretend world, which you can see because, hey, my name is out there and you can Google or CCAP to your heart's content.Mike Plaistedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18184502941014520240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post-37822195490102768542006-11-30T09:51:00.000-06:002006-11-30T09:51:00.000-06:00Mike I love that it bothers you that I post as ano...Mike I love that it bothers you that I post as anonymous but it is your post that I read and decided to comment on which allows anonymous posts so settle down tough guy. <br /><br />Whats funny is I am a Democrat not scooter as you said in your last post. The difference is I live in reality, not the blog pretend world that you live in. <br /><br />You keep fighting for universal health care one post at a time, but legislators receiving better benefits than the constituents they represent does not help that cause. Nor does it help that they recieve better benefits than other state employees.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post-10467835258291243332006-11-29T22:54:00.000-06:002006-11-29T22:54:00.000-06:00That's right, you wimpy anonymous person, I don't ...That's right, you wimpy anonymous person, I don't care that former legislators might be covered with health insurance provided by the state. I support universal health insurance, and if it's one legislator at a time, I'll take it.<br /><br />I'd check you math, though. I doubt there are enough former legislators taking advantage of this obscene perk to amount to "hundreds of thousands". Thousands, maybe. <br /><br />Either way, it's money well spent. The point isn't that legislators get perks that others don't -- it's how do we get that health insurance over to the rest of the people.<br /><br />Just say "yes", anonymous. And come out of the shadows where we can see you and where you are coming from. Or are you afraid of something...no!...it's not you, is it, Scooter???Mike Plaistedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18184502941014520240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post-36587009266646666822006-11-29T15:09:00.000-06:002006-11-29T15:09:00.000-06:00So the fact that legislators get a perk by all acc...So the fact that legislators get a perk by all accounts that cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars while at the same time state employees do not get that benefit unless they actual work for the state for a minium of 20 years is no big deal. <br /><br />I see legislators are better than the rest of us and deserve better health insurance coverage than other state employees and non state employees that don't get health coverage now. <br /><br />I totally see how that is not a story, of course people in reality see it as one including both legislative leaders who are promising to look at this benefit. What a horrible job the Journal Sentinal did in actually bringing up this minor matter which legislators are now forced to address.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post-22612114481029218752006-11-28T18:34:00.000-06:002006-11-28T18:34:00.000-06:00With all due respect to your, um, anonymousness, I...With all due respect to your, um, anonymousness, I did not miss the point of the article. I understand that the legislators are getting credit for not using sick leave that they should not have to use in the first place. <br /><br />One of my points is: I don't care. If an anomoly in the state benefit plan means that more people -- legislators, interns, people waiting in line at the DMV, whatever -- end up covered (drenched, even) in health insurance, that's a good thing.<br /><br />My primary point has to do with the ridiculous hyperbole that the Journal Sentinel brings to this non-issue, running the "story" twice across the front page and getting all full-chested in a lead editorial.<br /><br />It would help if Common Cause, when called for a quote on all this nonsense, would just say. "yeah, well, that's true, but there are about 200 more important issues out there, aren't there?" But, no. Heck can't do that. They might stop quoting him if he woke up one day with some sense of perspective.Mike Plaistedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18184502941014520240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post-76943576137309713372006-11-28T15:33:00.000-06:002006-11-28T15:33:00.000-06:00I think you miss the point, its not about state em...I think you miss the point, its not about state employees who are required to retire (20 years of service) to use there sick leave for health insurance. It is about legislators who are elected and can work 0 to 100 hours a week, they don't need sick time because they are not required put in a set number of hours. <br /><br />If you or I are sick and don't have sick time we don't get paid legislators get paid every day regardless. If they do nothing they might get unelected but they don't ever need to call in sick. That is why most of them do not even realize the have the benefit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com