PAGE NOT FOUND


We're sorry, but we cannot find the page you requested. Our Advanced Search page can assist in helping you find the article or content you are attempting to locate.

Thank You!

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I agree with much of what Righthanded said. However, I wanted to add one more thing. Since the Republican Party has said that the "gay" population is more like 1%-2% (rather than the generally accepted 10%), the actual resulting number of people that will actually derive benefits would be much lower. If you extrapolate this through RIGHTHANDED's calculations, the result is 0.25% (not 2.5% as you stated). With 7,451 employees eligible for benefits, this means it will allow (roughly) 18 of them to add their domestic partner. This will not "kill" the budget. Rather, it will be a great tool to attract a few more talented gay/lesbian people to consider Indianapolis a user-friendly community. With those people come their talents, increased tax revenue, and an improved quality of life for all. Seems like a very small investment to improve the overall base community.

  2. Saltines.

  3. This is one of the most outrages concepts we have seen in years. Anyone who wants to be covered simply needs someone to say they are a couple and they are covered and we pay for it. hey when the coverage is no longer needed wefind someone else who needs coverage, when does it stop? This should not even be considered.

  4. Any "Domestic Partner Registry" is subject to significant fraud just like the recent media investigation showing huge problems with the Indiana Sex and Violent Offender Registry.

    What prevents people from claiming benefits from more than one employer for more than one "partner"?

    Don't see the HR department conducting sex & committed relationship audits with home visits?

  5. Words cannot adequated express how riduculous this is. How can anyone go from 8.8 million to 29.2 million (thanks for the $4 gas prices by the way)??

ADVERTISEMENT