[Vision2020] Domenstic Benefits?
David M. Budge
dave at davebudge.com
Thu Jun 2 08:38:00 PDT 2005
I stand corrected. Seems as the alternative spelling "bollox" is
actually modern colloquial usage.
So, if even perhaps offensive, it all reminds me of the phrase:
' "Balls" said the Queen. If the Queen had balls she'd be the King!"
db
Saundra Lund wrote:
>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
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
> 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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050602/e15e3f11/attachment.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list