[Vision2020] Domenstic Benefits?

Thu Jun 2 14:18:50 PDT 2005

Hi Dave,

Well . . . harrumph!  It depends on your source . . . or the dictionary you
use, I guess  :-)

I learned the spelling from a UK friend.  However, after getting your email,
I thought perhaps Helen doesn't know how to spell.  But, she does:
" bollocks 
.... 
 U.K. a taboo term meaning to make a mess or muddle of something ( taboo )"
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561501748/definition.html

Of course, I was rather . . . surprised that I had to click past a Language
Advisory to get to the definition & spelling  :-)

And, not to worry about spelling my name incorrectly . . . I'm tolerant & I
knew who you were addressing  :-)))  Plus, the spelling you used is actually
how my name *was* spelled by my parents for the first 10 years or so of my
life.  Due to a clerical error, no name had ever been entered on my birth
certificate, so I was Baby Girl Spence for a decade.  By the time they
discovered that, they'd learned that Sandra is typically pronounced one way,
and to get the pronunciation they'd been using, it needed to be either
Sondra or Saundra.  So, Saundra I became  :-)  I lobbied hard for a complete
change of name (Amber Elizabeth struck my fancy at that time), but I was
overruled by my parents -- go figure  ;-)

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 by 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: David M. Budge [mailto:dave at davebudge.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 02 June 2005 7:23 AM
To: Saundra Lund
Cc: 'Phil Nisbet'; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Domenstic Benefits?

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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
>  
>