Confronted with Democratic Councilwoman Jenny Wilson's plan to extend medical coverage, dental care and other county benefits to employees' unmarried partners and live-in relatives, the GOP-led County Council pitched a pay-for-it-yourself policy that would offer similar benefits but no government subsidy.
"We should do what we can to extend coverage in a responsible way," Republican Councilman Mark Crockett said, complimenting Wilson on the one hand and undercutting her proposal on the other.
The council voted 5-4 along party lines to commission a financial analysis that would explore the costs of the GOP's version of expanded benefits.
While Republicans trumpeted the decision as potentially unlocking coverage for more people, an agitated Wilson condemned it as a ''delay tactic'' that will make no real progress toward providing more expansive health care.
''I don't think people can afford this,'' she said.
Wilson's crusade for broader benefits began six months into her first term in 2005, when the Democratic councilwoman suggested stretching the county's insurance to cover domestic partners.
In an emotional party-line vote, Republicans scuttled that proposal. She then enlarged her request to include any ''adult designee,'' a term that includes anyone who shares finances and a home with a county employee.
Wilson's revamped designee proposal - patterned after Salt Lake City's - never came to a vote Tuesday. She later shed tears in a private conversation with Crockett.
In coverage, the Democratic and Republican plans appear strikingly similar. But not in cost.
Unlike Wilson's adult-designee package - which would have provided county-subsidized benefits for any relative, friend or domestic partner who has lived with an employee for at least a year and proved financial interdependence - the GOP proposal would give workers' live-in companions or relatives access to health care, but no taxpayer assistance.
The plan also would include any "dependent," as defined by the Internal Revenue Service.
Premiums for any add-on adults would range from $297 to $447 a month, according to Crockett, compared with the $69 to $104 bump that employees would pay to add an "adult designee" under Wilson's plan.
"It [the GOP plan] is access in name only," Democratic Councilman Joe Hatch lamented. "It is not access in reality."
Democrats rejected their conservative colleagues' compromise, saying Republicans were denying health insurance to low-income earners who might not be able to pay the premium.
Republicans retorted that the county was widening its health coverage while still encouraging the traditional family.
"It allows for tolerance and diversity," GOP Councilman Jeff Allen said, "but also a recognition of our core values."
The GOP tweaks to Wilson's health care policy came as a disappointment to Mike ThompsonÂ, executive director of the gay and lesbian advocacy group Equality Utah.
"It is really a matter of equal pay for equal work," he said. "Employees should be entitled to the same benefits whether they are married or unmarried. This decision gives preference to married county employees."
Democratic Mayor Peter Corroon said Tuesday he could not comment on whether he would support or veto the GOP proposal before seeing the details.
The middleman in the debate was Republican Councilman David Wilde, who viewed both benefit packages - which could cover gay and lesbian partners - as an attack on the family.
"It is important for government to support traditional values," he said. "I worry that any of these proposals is veering from that."
In the end, Wilde chose the "lesser of two evils," as he put it, and sided with the GOP plan.
jstettler@sltrib.com
