response 25 of 88:

Nov 10 20:53 UTC 2003

Re #23: I could probably be persuaded to support that.

response 27 of 88:

Nov 11 02:48 UTC 2003

Just 'cause you're not married doesn't mean you can't have a will.

response 29 of 88:

Nov 12 22:18 UTC 2003

A ridiculous position. is Springfield in NH?

response 31 of 88:

Nov 13 19:21 UTC 2003

Re #28: If no one finds it, then you must have been oddly secretive
about drawing one up.

response 33 of 88:

Nov 14 15:38 UTC 2003

(wow.  an obscure Simpsons reference where the phrase "obscure Simpsons
reference" isn't redundant.)  ;)

response 35 of 88:

Nov 18 15:02 UTC 2003

I'd just as soon see the state get out of "marriage" all together.  The
state can give people a civil union of some kind that has the legal
benefits of marriage, but none of the religious connotations.  If people
then want to be married "in the eyes of God" they're free to have their
church do so.

response 37 of 88:

Nov 18 15:23 UTC 2003

Blimey. Is this new?

response 39 of 88:

Nov 18 15:32 UTC 2003

I would guess they'll either legislate something or amend their state
constitution.

response 41 of 88:

Nov 18 15:59 UTC 2003

Thyey work fast.

response 43 of 88:

Nov 18 18:52 UTC 2003

Ah, the "Our constitution provides a minority too much rights -- let's
'fix' it..." approach.  Like Hawaii's.

response 45 of 88:

Nov 19 23:37 UTC 2003

This marriage issue might wind up fixing some other festering
problems in society which have nothing to do with orientation.

Take the cost of benefits (please!).  The cost of employee
benefits has gone up radically for most employers, and most are
looking for ways to reduce costs in any way possible.  The
addition of same-sex couples to the list of people eligible
might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Solution:  END BLANKET ELIGIBILITY FOR SPOUSAL BENEFITS.

Sounds radical?  Sure.  But when you consider that most couples
which are not raising children have two incomes (and most of the
rest could), it makes no sense for the employer of one to
subsidize the other.  If you reduce eligibility to couples
which are raising children you accomplish two very worthwhile
things:

1.)  You cut the cost to employers, making insurance more affordable.

2.)  You decrease the subsidies to two-earner couples and increase
     the funding available for children.  Goodness knows we need it.

And with that you neatly get rid of the complaints that good Xtian
people are paying for the benefits of those evil homosexuals (unless
they are raising children, in which case you can play the "kid card"
against the nay-sayers).

response 47 of 88:

Nov 20 02:29 UTC 2003

re:  "#45 (russ): . . . 1.)  You cut the cost to employers, making 
insurance more affordable."

Not exactly, Mr. russ.  The cost may only, in reality, be reallocated.  
Employer A, who may pay for the benefits of employee Mr. X and his wife 
(Mrs. X) may realize a savings if it no longer pays the health care 
coverage cost of Mrs X; however, would not Mrs. X's employer (B), 
now being forced to pay for her health care benefits, suffer a loss of 
equal magnitude?  So that which is more affordable for Employer A would 
become less so for Employer B.  And, if all of the employees of A and 
the employees of B cancel each other out, nothing has been gained or 
lost by either.

response 49 of 88:

Nov 20 17:30 UTC 2003

re:  #48 (polygon):  No, I think the intent and effect would be to 
shift at least some of the cost of health insurance back to the 
recipients.  (.....The response in #47 was to the scenario of a dual 
income family.....)

For example, if a couple has one working and one nonworking spouse, 
they would have to pay something extra (maybe a lot) to cover the 
nonworking spouse.  (....It would be likely that a good portion of the 
current health care costs incurred by the employer would be passed on 
to the employee in the form of wages....)

Sometimes health insurance is cumulative.  (.....The correct term 
is "coordination of benefits," although some policies provide that the 
secondary carrier will kick in only the amount that will bring the 
total coverage by both carriers to the level the secondary carrier 
would pay if it were the sole insurer......)
With Delta Dental, sometimes half the cost of a procedure is paid by 
one spouse's insurance, and the other half by the other spouse's.  With 
only one spouse having health insurance, you'd have a 50% co-pay.

If a couple both work, and both have health insurance via the husband's
company, as klg seems to, perhaps the wife's employer doesn't offer 
health insurance (to people in that job category, say).  Russ wasn't 
suggesting that the wife's employer be "forced" to offer health 
insurance.  Maybe the wife declined her employer's health insurance -- 
that doesn't seem likely.  (.....It is likely!  The spouse frequently 
declines coverage - particularly if one employer offers the employee a 
cash incentive for doing so....)

I think keesan's objection is more salient: given the choice of paying 
for extra health insurance for the spouse who is uncovered by russ's 
proposed rule, I think a great many of them would decide not to spend 
scarce resources on insurance.  Result: more uninsured, more burden on 
costly emergency care, more bankruptcies.   (.....Perhaps people need 
to be reeducated that health insurance is a proper use of scarce 
resources.  They use scare resources for other important (food) and 
less important (fancy stuff) purchases, don't they?......)

Russ is absolutely right that the automatic assumption of spousal 
coverage is grossly unfair to single employees.  (....That is a huge 
assumption.  Some argue that married employees are more productive/more 
loyal than single employees and, therefore, are worth the extra 
cost....)  But getting rid of that automatic coverage would probably 
add many millions more uninsured, and worsen all the associated 
problems. 

Further, there are certain economies of having a whole family covered by
the same health insurance, since oftentimes more than one member is
affected by the same medical problem -- I'm thinking of contagious or
hereditary conditions.  (....We fail to see how having the same company 
pay the providers would have any effect whatsoever upon the treatment.  
Would not that be dependent upon the providers of service 
themselves???....)

The fundamental problem here is that our system in which most people get
health insurance as part of employment is badly flawed.  It's a huge 
drag on economic activity.

If I understood this right, the U.S. steel industry says it pays a 
higher percentage of its revenues for health care than its overseas 
rivals pay in total taxes.  Foreign companies make steel more cheaply 
because they don't have to pay for employee health insurance, even 
though they pay more in taxes.  (Of course, if this is true, it may 
partly reflect that people working in steel mills have high healthcare 
costs.)  (.....Perhaps what is needed is to provide more market 
incentives in the purchase of health care.  Making individuals 
responsible for more of the cost would put the "drag" on prices, 
perhaps making everyone better off!!!......)