[Vision2020] Domenstic Benefits?

[Saundra Lund]

Hi Mr. Nisbet,

Well . . . I guess it's a safe guess that you don't work at the University
of Idaho, which is Latah County's largest employer.  Hopefully, if I
bollocks this up, someone will correct me  :-)

Without addressing coverage details (which, IMHO, again decreased for UI
employees in the form of new & increased deductibles, increased co-payments,
increased out of pocket limits, switching to MOB, etc), I can tell you that
our family (employee, spouse, 1 child) will be paying less in premiums this
upcoming fiscal year.

Why?  Well, if I understand correctly, it's because our particular
configuration (employee, spouse, 1 child) has been used in the past to
***subsidize*** the premiums of other groups.  Specifically, the spouse
portion has subsidized employees with ***no (covered) spouse*** but with
covered children.  [This information is available from
http://www.hr.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=80749; scroll down, click on
PowerPoint Presentation of Changes under FY06 Program Change Highlights,
then read the notes for Slide 16.]

So, with respect to the UI, I would have to strongly disagree with your
statement:
"But there are one heck of a lot of single parents, people who do not have
two people raising children or two paychecks to cover the costs who are just
as deserving of assistance, but as singles are expected to shoulder the
burden for those who are not single."

To the contrary:  at the UI, the spouse premium has apparently been
subsidizing the premium of single parents with children.  Is that fair?

I don't think I'm missing your point, but sometimes things aren't as they
seem, as I think I've just shown using the UI as an example.


Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2005, Saundra Lund.
Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
without the express written permission of the author.*****

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Phil Nisbet
Sent: Thursday, 02 June 2005 3:13 AM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Domenstic Benefits?

There was a spirited discussion on spreading benefits about for gays and
lesbians and transgenders, etc.  Though it has dried up, I was wondering,

Why is there a benefit for people simple because they happen to be sharing
the same bedroom?

Don't get it wrong, I benefited from it back while I was married and before
I became a single dad, but now I am happily not married and intend to spend
the rest of my life in happy bachleorhood.

So I guess I am wondering why it is that simply because two people make a
choice to sleep together and live together in some sort of bonded
relationship, those of us who have been there and done that and got the
Tshirt, but are not to particularly wanting to do it again any time soon,
are expected to pay higher taxes and spring for higher bills for insurance
and the rest, simply because somebody else is having a wonderful time of
matrimonial bliss.

As long as we as a society chose to favor couples with tax breaks and
benefits, I do not see how all types of relationship are not granted special
privileges equally.

Those who suggest that marriage is one man and one woman and deserve
benefits are doing so based on the premise that this is about kids, the
having and raising of them being something that society needs to assist.  
But there are one heck of a lot of single parents, people who do not have
two people raising children or two paychecks to cover the costs who are just
as deserving of assistance, but as singles are expected to shoulder the
burden for those who are not single.  And of course, lesbian and gay couples
can have households with kids as well.  Then you have childless couples, the
Double Income No Kids (DINKs), who never are going to have kids.

So if taking care of children is the key, why not attach the benefit to the
kids and not to the couples?  That means that DINKs do not get a benefit
simply because they are sleeping together, but that struggling single
parents see the same benefit as two parent households.

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

_____________________________________________________
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯