[Vision2020] Simple solution to domestic partner health coverage?
suehovey at moscow.com
Fri Dec 21 08:59:35 PST 2007
Scott, from the account in the paper, that's essentially what Randy Fife is
saying, too. One issue that plagues me is according to that same article,
many city employees opposed the change even though this action will not cost
them money, will not impact their benefits, and serves to provide people
with medical insurance. I hope when those employees are occupied in their
city jobs they aren't as dismissive of the citizens they are supposed to
serve as they are of the people with whom they work.
And seems to me the U of I should rethink its position, too.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Dredge" <sdredge at yahoo.com>
To: "viz" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 12:49 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Simple solution to domestic partner health coverage?
> Isn't there a simple solution to all the hubbub surrounding proposed
> domestic partner health coverage for members of the Moscow local
> government as well as at the University of Idaho? Can't these entities -
> without specifically listing this in their own benefits guide - just offer
> health plans from Blue Cross, etc. that as part of their business practice
> offer domestic partner coverage? I'm no constitutional lawyer, but it
> seems to me that if a multinational insurance company already offers
> benefits for domestic partners and that if an Idaho local or state entity
> offers this policy to their employees, there isn't a legal conflict. In
> short, would a company incorporated outside of the state of Idaho be
> breaking Idaho law by offering what they define as domestic partner
> benefits to an Idaho state employee and that employee's qualifying (under
> the company's policy) domestic partner?
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
More information about the Vision2020