response 169 of 191:

Sep 23 17:00 UTC 2003

re#167 - good point. Employers should compensate all employees who do 
the same work equally. Which does make me think that maybe it is just 
better for employers to stop offering health insurance to spouses/live 
in partners etc. Either that or they can say that the employee is 
covered as well as any one other person that employee chooses to have 
on their insurance. 

Tod says in resp:168 - "Giving benefits to one particular group of
"partners" without providing to all "partnerships" is favoritism. "

So if they offer benefits to spouses (which is just one particular 
group of "partners") then it wouldnt be fair to not extend the benefit 
to any other partnerships such as same sex domestic partners. 

response 171 of 191:

Sep 23 18:00 UTC 2003

Offering benefits to spouses effectively means that married people get 
paid more money than single people or people living in domestic 
partnerships. 

response 173 of 191:

Sep 23 18:11 UTC 2003

I had to pay for my extra coverage (for Bruce and kids) for the whole time
I've had health insurance. When I finally took Bruce off it this year, I went
from paying $60 plus/week to only $19/week for my health insurance. Why is
that unfair to my coworkers, since if they were single, they would have been
paying the $19/week all along  (or whatever the current price was over the
last twenty years)? 

response 175 of 191:

Sep 23 18:23 UTC 2003

I think that there is confusion over "providing health care to spouses". 
This can be simply including them in the same group health insurance plan
but still charging for the extra persons (as anderyn illustrates). The
most important part of company health insurance plans is the creation of a
"group" - of mostly healthy (i.e., gainfully employed) workers. This
reduces considerably the actual costs to the insurer (and company).

response 181 of 191:

Sep 23 19:56 UTC 2003

Of course if we had a national health care system where everyone was 
covered, none of this would be an issue. 

response 183 of 191:

Sep 23 20:19 UTC 2003

Sometimes the simpler the words, the better it is comprehended ;) I haven't
been keeping up with this item,really, till maybe about 5 responses ago.

response 185 of 191:

Sep 23 21:03 UTC 2003

I'll second the idea of leaving marital status entirely out of it and letting
employees put a specified number of people of their choice on the policy,
depending on what the company decides to offer and|or what the union manages
to negotiate.

response 187 of 191:

Sep 23 21:19 UTC 2003

I think the question was if you're a national of another country, and that
country recognises you as a married couple, why should the US govt object to
let them in if they are entering the country as tourists? I can understand
if they were looking to become permanent residents or citizens or even stay
for an extended period of time to work, but telling them they can't enter the
country because their marriage isn't recognised in this country, never mind
that they are legally married in the country of their origin? I don't think
thje question of "obeying" the law comes up here. It's not like they're coming
here to get married. 

response 189 of 191:

Sep 24 01:27 UTC 2003

I don't agree with banning the couple from the country.  That seems 
foolish to me.  It shouldn't be national policy.  My point is solely 
that it is not up to a foreigner to determine US policy.

If they came here to make a point, as it surely seems, then I don't 
think they had any business doing so.  I don't mind that they were 
sent home in that case.  I assume they could have just complied with 
the law and been admitted.

Now that they've been sent home, though, it's US citizen's business to 
change the law so the same doesn't happen again.  I'm not interested 
enough to become an activist on the issue myself, but if others here 
are moved to get involved, you can have my support.

response 191 of 191:

Sep 24 16:20 UTC 2003

Not if the Supreme Court voids it.