Proposal Introduced That Would Limit City’s Denial Of Health Benefits

The health care benefits battle continued at El Paso City Council this week.

Tuesday, a proposal was introduced that would allow the domestic partners and dependent children of current city employees to keep their health insurance.

A voter-passed initiative, put on the ballot by a petition from local religious group, El Pasoans for Traditional Family Values, passed 55 to 45-percent last month. The ordinance, set to take effect on Jan. 1, would take away the health benefits of gay and unmarried partners of city employees.

El Pasoans for Traditional Family Values has always insisted their only target was to take away the health insurance of gay and unwed partners of city employees. According to city representatives, only 19 employees signed up for those benefits, which were approved by City Council in a budget meeting last year.

The City Attorney has said that because the initiative only mentions city employees, their spouses, and dependent children, of dozens of other unintended people will lose their health insurance. If there’s no change, some of those who will lose benefits include retirees who may qualify for benefits through a new employer, elected officials, dependent grandchildren and foster children of city employees.

The public wasn’t even supposed to have a say on the matter until a public hearing next week, but protocol didn’t stop either side from speaking out on Tuesday.

“The hate that these radical fringe pastors are spreading is an infection that is eating our city,” Daniel Rollings said.

The others side didn’t back down. “You’ve insulted the voters,” Sonia Brown said. “They’re a lot smarter than you think.”

That was one reaction to City Rep. Rachel Quintana’s proposed amendment to the voter-approved ordinance.

“The language did not specify for it to be retroactive,” Quintana said.

Quintana’s proposal would make it so employees hired before the ordinance passed would get to keep their health coverage.

“Going forward after the vote, respecting the will of the voters, those people who don’t qualify as a city employee’s legal spouse or dependent child will not be eligible for benefits,” Quintana said.

But the ordinances authors said it’s just a loophole. Now they’re up in arms.

“My point is: let’s now fight,” pastor Tom Brown said. “The people knew what they voted for.”

Brown’s wife said, “don’t insult them yet again by telling them they didn’t know what they were voting for.”

The other side said the proposal is a partial fix to the civil rights issue of our generation.

“Domestic partner benefits is not a special right, it’s an equal right,” Rollings said. “Everyone pays taxes and everyone deserves equal benefits”

The ordinance’s authors claim the city is manipulating the public by leading them to believe it affects more people than the 19 employees it was intended for. The city was not able to tell us exactly how many people stand to lose their benefits but the number city officials have said before was as high as 200.

City officials said they’re waiting to hear back from more than 1,000 employees to evaluate their eligibility for coverage.