MARRIED OR NOT, GAYS GAIN PARTNER COVERAGE

Forbes.Com ^ | 4/7/2004 | Ashlea Ebeling

[Gator113]

Wait a minute!!!!! Ok, I have been with the same lovely Bride for over 31 years, but back in my single days, I was a tramp, a promiscuous slave to my heterosexual desires. This behavior subjected me and those around me, to many.......lets say...14 day health issues. So, if the gays get coverage for their dates, might I be able to collect reparations for the health costs associated with my prior deeds, adventures and conquests???

Also, hypothetically, as I can not "legally marry" a girlfriend, because I am already married....... if I choose to have a girlfriend, might I be able to get coverage for her, and her, and her, and her.......

I find so much of this gay stuff so darn silly....they are going to make things even worse for them than they claim things are now!

[brushcop]

You have made a very valid point. Isn't it amazing that this group, who base an entire lifestyle on a sex act, is granted special priviledges? I can hear the response to this now!

RB

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

You can put American Express and International Paper on your list.

[Gopher Broke]

Companies should not be encouraging promotion of the homosexual agenda by offering these benefits. As long as there are companies smart enough to NOT endorse that agenda by offering benefits to homosexual partners, then I will do business with them instead.

Freepers, let' do what is right....not what is "hip" or politically-correct.

[Gopher Broke]

Companies should not be encouraging promotion of the homosexual agenda by offering these benefits. As long as there are companies smart enough to NOT endorse that agenda by offering benefits to homosexual partners, then I will do business with them instead.

Freepers, let' do what is right....not what is "hip" or politically-correct.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

I agree wholeheartedly, that is why I now work for myself. Speaking out against these type things in the corporate world is not beneficial to ones career.

[Modernman]

Typical.

[Modernman]

With this bit of folksiness in mind, I will state unequivocally that I am opposed to any entity treating perverts like a privileged class of people.

That's your right. Do you agree, though, that a private company should be free to extend health benefits as it sees fit?

[Modernman]

So, if the gays get coverage for their dates, might I be able to collect reparations for the health costs associated with my prior deeds, adventures and conquests???

As a single person? It doesn't matter whether you're gay or straight, your health plan will cover you the same when you're single.

Also, hypothetically, as I can not "legally marry" a girlfriend, because I am already married....... if I choose to have a girlfriend, might I be able to get coverage for her, and her, and her, and her.......

You can legally marry your girlfriend, you just choose not to since that would mean divorcing your current wife. The rationale behind allowing unmarried partner benefits only to homosexuals is because they cannot, legally, marry their chosen partner. Keep in mind, though, that some employer health plans allow unmarried straight couples to claim coverage, too.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

I'm not the one using a quote from Oscar Wilde for his tagline. It's you that's typical.

[JesseHousman]

any entity

What Procter and Gamble does is not their business.

I use Procter and Gamble as the illustration because it was, after all, one of the first biggies to take care of a homosexual's "partner."

First, these corporations are owned by ME the stockholder and I am patently opposed to recognition of homosexual bedmates and their agenda.

Second, what companies singularly or collectively do that is inherently wrong has an effect on society at large.

I fail to see why a right-thinking person would be in any way confused by my assessment of this societal evil.

[JesseHousman]

Oscar Wilde

Aha, OC! I must have been blind to have missed that tagline!

Speaks volumes.

[HostileTerritory]

Because they are self-insured, it is easy for the employees to check the facts and see that the domestic partner coverage is responsible for nearly all of the increases.

Just curious, how do they know that domestic partner coverage is the cause? I'm skeptical, only because insurance costs have been skyrocketing for EVERYONE. It's worst at small companies that do not have the clout to bargain a good deal from their insurere. Companies with domestic partner benefits have not been singled out for increases, to the best of my knowledge.

[HostileTerritory]

First, these corporations are owned by ME the stockholder and I am patently opposed to recognition of homosexual bedmates and their agenda.

LOL. How many shares do you own? How do you think your financial empire in P&G shares matches up against the big liberal pension funds run out of states like NY and CA when it comes time to vote on these issues?

Companies aren't socialist enterprises; your 50 shares don't entitle you to the same OWNERSHIP that another individual's or entity's 50,000 shares gives them.

[JesseHousman]

How many shares do you own?

More than 50.

You failed to grasp the point I was making, or perhaps you didn't.

[Modernman]

I'm not the one using a quote from Oscar Wilde for his tagline. It's you that's typical.

Typical of what? People who use Oscar Wilde as a tagline?

Jump to conclusions, much?

[FormerLib]

Just curious, how do they know that domestic partner coverage is the cause?

Because they self-insure, they have access to the data, less personal information. They can, however, tell the type of policy. This is how they were able to determine it was the domestic partner coverage that was costing them so much.

Yes, costs have been rising but nothing has come close to the cost explosion that they've seen from these few dozen policies.

[Modernman]

First, these corporations are owned by ME the stockholder and I am patently opposed to recognition of homosexual bedmates and their agenda.

Stockholders are free to vote out the current board of directors and replace it with one that will change health care policies. Stockholders are also free to sell their stock, if they do not agree with the company's stance. However, if the stockholders do not choose to do so, there is nothing to stop the company from maintaining whatever health care plan if desires.

I fail to see why a right-thinking person would be in any way confused by my assessment of this societal evil.

Your assessment is irrelevant, unless you are the owner of a company. Nobody is making you work for, own stock in, or buy goods and services from, a company that gives same-sex partner health benefits. That's the beauty of a free society.

[Modernman]

Oscar Wilde

Yes, only homosexuals have ever read anything written by Oscar Wilde. LOL.

[FormerLib]

Wait until they catch some fairy becoming a domestic partner soley to get medical coverage. It is so easy to do that costs will sky rocket and have to be met with cuts in benefits for all.

Using my wife's company as an example again, they've already run into that. The company responded by restricting how often the domestic partners could be dropped and added. The spokespersons for the gay employees were outraged. But it really applies to everyone so they don't have any legal ground to contest it.