[Vision2020] Domenstic Benefits?

[David M. Budge]

OK Sandra, I'll correct you. The proper spelling is "bollox."

db

Saundra Lund wrote:

>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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
> 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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
>  
>