Posted on 08/24/2006 12:53:30 PM PDT by Sopater
There is a breaking story in Washington State today that goes something like this:
Straight Woman Seeks Equality Under Gay-Rights Law.
I just finished an interview with KING 5 TV in Seattle and the news people are still trying to sort out all of the ramifications.
Sandi Scott-Moore, an employee of Honeywell International in Redmond, WA, claims health insurance coverage for her male partner was denied because the unmarried couple is not of the same gender.
Robert Ferris, of Honeywell, says the company does provide health benefits for partners of its gay and lesbian employees. He is also saying Honeywell has a zero-tolerance stand on discrimination. Yet he is saying her claim has no merit. Which is it?
How can benefits go to the unmarried partner if you’re gay but not if you’re heterosexual?
Marc Brennen, Human Rights Commission Director said, “We could be creating new policy for employers and other entities in the State.” He said, “Upholding the claim could set a sweeping new precedent for Washington business.”
Faith & Freedom and other faith-based organizations have been saying that this bill was dangerous and would have far-reaching and possibly unintended consequences.
A lawyer friend of mine just sent me the following email.
“Gary. So now the flood gates have been opened. The ‘special rights’ law will reorder our entire society by marginalizing and blurring [traditional] marriage and traditional roles such as man, woman, husband and wife. All relationships will be equal and marriage will no longer have specific meaning nor be special.”
When the faith community unsuccessfully campaigned to get HB2661 on the ballot, we were consistently accused of being prejudiced or bigoted.
We are not. However, there are reasons why traditional marriage and values have served humanity well for thousands of years.
To re-engineer society is to begin moving down a slippery slope from which there is little hope for recovery.
House Bill 2661 is a solid first step in that direction. We have only begun to see its unintended consequences.
__________________ Gary Randall President Faith & Freedom
Companies will simply stop offering benefits to people other than the employees as a way around this.
That's fine with me - just another step in the uncoupling of health insurance and work.
Pointing out inequities can be constructive.
What is the reason for that?
In your perfect world, pray tell, what will it be recoupled with in the aftermath of a lot of people's coverage not coming through employers anymore?
Eek!
People buy individual plans or join groups with buying power. Or, the individual is covered and the employee simply pays for the add ons but at a discounted rate made available through the size of the company's membership.
The Boston Globe told its Gay employees to get married or risk losing benefits.
Many people are anchored to their jobs because if they left, they might not get health care at their new job because of pre-existing conditions.
If each person had their own health insurance, free of ties to their job, we would not have as many problems with health insurance as we do now. (note I said "as many")
How about you buy your own plan - many of us who are self-employed or who have small businesses have successfully managed to obtain quality, reasonably-priced health insurance.
You might even get an employer to give you more money in salary if they aren't paying for your health care too.
It's always amazing to me that people are so wedded to the status quo that they don't even look at alternatives.
I was wondering just how long it would take.
Significant others will be included. Then watch for same sex friends who are living together claiming significant other status (really, how are you going to make the prove that they are lesbian or homosexual)
I say let's take it one step further and completely sever the link between "employment" and "work." Nobody hires employees anymore . . . instead, every "employee" functions as an independent contractor who is responsible for his/her own insurance policies, vacation time, etc.
That's about what we have already. There's an interesting book by Daniel Pink called "Free Agent Nation" arguing for just that model.
*snicker* Not that Iwould know, mind you,but I think it's "bEStiality" ;)
"You might even get an employer to give you more money in salary if they aren't paying for your health care too"
But, then, you have to pay *taxes* on the extra pay. It is never a zero sum game.
Get the FedGov out of the health care business and add a bit of tort reform, then maybe everyone could afford health care.
Put this in your pipe and smoke it you PC pukes. May you and your lawyers rot.
If it worked like home insurance with shared risk, ok. Nut if a person has a major health problem...................Shared risk is the only way health insurance can work, as bad as it is.
"....because if they left, they might not get health care at their new job because of pre-existing conditions."
And if they had those pre-exisiting conditions they couldn't afford health care no matter where they worked if it wasn't available through a company plan.
I think your reasoning is skewed on this issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.