${gotBlog.title}

You're playing a semantics game here, tosaoutsider. Let's assume that this bill is passed and then EVERY claim that would have previously been denied will now be approved. Those approved claims are effectively 'new insurance' since it will be an additional new expense on the insurance companies. That money for those new approved claims has to come from somebody's pocket. I still don't see how any First Responder can't get coverage from their 'normal' medical plan right now if Workman's Comp denies coverage for a particular claim.

This blog has been present for quite some time now, and despite me asking numerous times, nobody has offered any NUMBERS to show that First Responders are any more or any less likely to contract these infectious diseases WHEN COMPARED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. You've opined in the past that 'common sense' dictates that this would be the case, but, "It doesn't offer "proof" of anything. It's just a noisy gasbag expelling some gas. There are no facts or figures - just worthless opinion.".

Sound familiar? Don't you just hate it when your own words come back to bite you, tosaoutsider? Ouch!

There is no new insurance. That's what you're not getting. Read the post again. This will just make it easier for first responders who get sick on the job to get the benefits to which they're entitled. It will help cut through the red tape.

As for clip you linked, it doesn't offer "proof" of anything. It's just a noisy gasbag expelling some gas. There are no facts or figures - just worthless opinion.

As with anything proposed mandate from Madison, the inevitable discussion turns to who will pay for it. It's been said here that some sort of pension plan will pay for this new insurance. OK, but then who pays to fund that pension? Do the first responders contribute a majority of the money to it, or do the taxpayers? For that matter, do the taxpayers pay 100% of the pension and the first responders contribute 0%? PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but I strongly suspect that the taxpayers contribute the vast majority of the dollars for it. If that's the case, then the taxpayers WILL pay for it because the pension plan will incur higher operating costs as a result of this new mandate.

Now, if you're telling me that this bill is intended to be protection for the fairly rare event of a first-responders contracting some infectious disease in the course of his/her job and therefore it won't cost much to implement, then why don't the first responders THEMSELVES pay for it and leave us taxpayers alone? Like you said, it's very little money.

I think ALL first responders should be able to get as much supplemental insurance as they feel they need, just don't ask me to pay for it. First responders don't help me pay for my health insurance, do they? I could be wrong, but aren't many first responders eligible to retire much earlier than the rest of us? As it is, I'm already scheduled to work many years after they retire. Worse yet, they'll all move to Florida and no longer pay income taxes to Wisconsin for the benefits that they've received over the years and are continuing to get (but that's a whole 'nuther topic).

The audio clip was intended to give the objective reader/listener some proof that local governments are already bloated. If those same people say that they can't afford this supplemental insurance, then they're not telling the whole story. And that's why I keep asking questions...

SOM-You posted a link to a pompous gasbag bragging for 15 minutes about how great he is and how horrible West Bend Schools are. What does that have to do with anything?

Try to stick to the subject, SOM. The subject is a bill that will help any first responder unfortunate enough to contract and infection on the job. Such occurrences are rare so this is unlikely to cost taxpayers very much, but it could make an enormous difference to an individual whose health is ruined as a result of his or her service to the community.

You say 'cheap' as if being cheap is a bad thing, tosaoutsider. Since you're apparently NOT cheap, I'd be willing to bet $1 that you carry a balance (i.e. you're in debt) on at least one of your credit cards.

That's a characteristic of government, lately. To avoid being characterized as 'cheap' by people like you, they spend first, and raise taxes later. Here's an excellent example of local government NOT being 'cheap', as you say. Try to tell me that this spend first, ask questions later attitude DOESN'T exist in all branches of government at all levels.

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MILWAUKEE-WI/BLNG-IP/Belling2_10-16-09.mp3

It's a big scam. No local government agency wants to cut anything that would affect them personally. The taxpayer is a secondary concern to these governmental officials when they make their decision to cut services or raise taxes.

Hank isn't the one beating the dead horse, here, TT. You and your buddies have posted over and over in this and other threads about how you don't want to pay for government services. We get it. You're cheap. Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

Hank, you seem to be beating a dead horse here.

If it is not work related, then you make a claim under the rich benefit health insurance plan, just like any other employee. If you contracted something outside of work, we dont owe you your lost wages, buy more disability insurance.

Get real dude, someone has to pay for this and we taxpayers are broke. Knock it off.

The stopping point is the 11 defined disease's. The presumtion is just that, the employer has the right to challenge the presumption and prove it didn't happen on the job. Workers comp will deny any claims unless proven. as I said before, it's almost if not impossible to know who, when and what and where the exposure came from. AFLAC probably doesn't offer a plan for this type of risk.

You're not getting it, SOM. Lord Brookfield gets it. I don't agree with him, but he gets it. The thing that current law does not address is the presumption that an illness is work related.

I do think that this is good public policy because it makes it easier for those few first responders who are harmed in the line of duty to get the benefits to which they're entitled. The kind of information that might be needed to prove workplace exposure to a pathogen would be almost impossible to obtain because of HIPAA laws. In some cases, they might not even know which patient was the source of HIV or TB.

The only way to protect first responders is to extend the law to include infectious diseases.