Posted on 09/14/2004 7:36:47 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the first major gay rights legislation to reach his desk yesterday when he approved a bill that would require insurance companies to offer coverage to registered domestic partners.
The governor's office announced his approval late yesterday without any fanfare or even a signing message explaining his decision.
AB 2208, sponsored by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, would require companies that offer health, life, homeowners and auto insurance to offer policies that cover domestic partners in the same way they cover spouses.
Current law requires insurers to offer domestic partners coverage equivalent to a dependent, rather than a spouse.
Gay rights advocates say the bill is a technical fix needed to pave the way for California's domestic partnership law, which takes effect next year. The law gives same-sex registered domestic partners a variety of rights and responsibilities now available only to married couples.
Kehoe, an openly lesbian legislator running for the state Senate, said in a letter supporting her legislation that the law is needed because "registered partners are often denied insurance benefits and coverage, or are unfairly required to pay higher premiums."
This new law, she wrote, "would protect families, eliminate uncertainty and confusion in current law and prevent unnecessary litigation."
The bill, though passed by the Legislature, ran into strong opposition. Opponents, including the Campaign for California Families and the Capitol Resource Institute, said it would infringe on the morals or private businesses that object to domestic partnerships.
In addition, some critics argued that it would drive up the cost of health insurance for businesses.
The bill was one of several sponsored by Equality California, a gay rights advocacy group that last year backed the state's landmark domestic partners law.
The Republican governor has long been viewed as a moderate on social issues, supporting gay rights, abortion rights and some gun controls. Unlike President Bush, who he has endorsed, Schwarzenegger has not backed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
The governor yesterday also signed bills that:
Add the .50 caliber BMG rifle to the list of dangerous weapons and creates new felonies for the manufacture, sale, or importation without a permit of this firearm, except as specified. AB 50 was carried by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood.
Limit hotel room rate hikes to 10 percent after natural disasters – legislation prompted by alleged price gouging in Imperial County in the wake of last fall's wildfires in San Diego and other Southern California counties. The bill, SB 1363, was carried by Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego.
Impose new restrictions and higher fines for falsifying workers' compensation claims. SBX42 from Sen. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, also makes it a crime for failing to pay workers' compensation claims by anyone who knew they should.
Reimburse counties from the state for all costs for mental health services. SB 1895 was authored by Sen. John Burton, D-San Francisco.
Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill aimed at clarifying laws that define horse racing terms. AB3083 was written by the Committee on Governmental Organization to update the law. Schwarzenegger said one of the definitions differed slightly from the Business and Professions code.
While he said the meaning might be the same, he didn't think it was worth the chance of creating confusion.
By the end of this month, the governor must act on hundreds of bills passed in the final days of the legislative session last month. Key bills pending would allow prescription drug purchases from Canada and allow illegal immigrants to apply for driver licenses.
---
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Hey Arnold, didn't you say you talk a lot about the damage communism did to Europe? Communism that TELLS PEOPLE HOW TO RUN THEIR AFFAIRS?
Sexual orientation is irrelevant. Who these companies offer health to is none of your damn business, one way or another.
Let's hope the Law Enforcement of the State of California is reduced to Daisy BB guns.
(( ping ))
Here's "strike 2".
Why can't the insurance company decide things like this?
I really don't see what there is here to get upset about.
The way I understand the article, this is just affecting insurance companies that offer health benefits.
They can set their premiums to whatever makes sense for them financially. They'll probably make more money from this... However, I suspect that many of the companies were probably already offering these benefits.
I guess one could have a moral opposition to the idea of allowing for these benefits... But I'm not seeing where you'd have a leg to stand on if it doesn't effect others in any way. I really don't suspect premiums for everyone would go up just because an insurance company gets new customers...
...now, if there were a law saying that insurance companies couldn't take into account sexual orientation when setting the premiums (I'm assuming there might be some more medical risks there), then, that would be an issue.
Uh, if they'd be making more money by doing this, then they'd already be doing it. It's safe to assume that it's going to cost them money, which will be passed on to their (normal) customers.
It doesn't matter how much money. The homosexual lobby is out to establish the principle that they can just demand whatever they want in order to subsidize their "lifestyle".
I'm not upset about homosexual couples getting benefits. I could care less what the company decides on its own to do.
What irks me is the government DICTATING to companies what they will do.
But, if we are talking about private companies that pass benefits on to their employees (through insurance companies group plans) they should NOT be required to offer the plan at the same rate. Because then, as you say, the cost would be spread among everyone. Anyone who wants health insurance should be able to get it as long as they pay for it. I don't know how this bill plays out in reality, but it isn't something that scares the way it seems to scare the responders of this thread.
Then I think we agree.
I'd have to read the bill and see what they are, in fact, dictating to see if it is any different then what they are already "dictating" to comapanies now.
What I'm wondering is what would make you guess that they wouldn't already be doing it without the law. And then what you would guess was the reason for passing it at all.
I think what you are talking about is the private companies that offer benefits (via these insurance companies)... I would only assume that "some" of them offer to their plans to homosexuals.... er domestic partners...
I guess the reason the law gets signed is because, without a negative fiscal impact, it would be hard to argue that some employees should get benefits, and others should not... (especially hard to argue here in California).
I googled the bill:
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, minor and absorbable costs to the Department of Managed Health Care and Department of Insurance to enforce the provisions of this bill. No state fiscal impact to CalPERS as it currently provides health benefits to domestic partners.
Still, I want to know the fiscal impact on private companies... if there is none, then I really don't care.
Yeah, so am I. That is the subject of the law.
I can see no reason why they wouldn't take on additional customers.
That doesn't answer my question. I asked you why they would need a law in order to take on additional customers, if it would work out so well for them financially.
I read this last night and thought these benefits were mandatory. We have a small business, and currently don't offer spousal coverage, so we wouldn't be affected by this. Also, the trend is for having the members pay more of the freight of health insurance anyway.
Of course, combined with the mandatory insurance requirements for companies with over 20 employees coming in next year, the Dems have just about covered their whole consituentcy with some type of health care (include the illegals with no pay ER care)
Another McClintock bttt.
54 posted on 09/14/2004 9:25:25 AM PDT by inquest wrote:Well, I'm talking about insurance companies themselves.Yeah, so am I. That is the subject of the law.
I can see no reason why they wouldn't take on additional customers.
That doesn't answer my question. I asked you why they would need a law in order to take on additional customers, if it would work out so well for them financially
Then, if we are both talking about insurance companies, I don't see a reason for the law.
It is probably redundant, like most new laws... Unfortunately (or fortunately), I don't know all the facts with regard to domestic partner benefits here in California.
But when you asked "what would make you guess that they wouldn't already be doing it without the law" it was just guess. I would see no reason for insurance companies not to offer as many options for people to BUY insurance from them as makes sense. One obvious reason for the law might be a lesbian senator who wants to look good in front of here constituents... even if the law is not actually needed.
Again though... it's just a guess. But I'm pretty sure you could find insurance companies already offering domestic partnership benefits. I could be wrong...
...I'm not going to go searching for it though... I don't want to get on that email list! lol
So yeah... I don't see a NEED for the law, but I'm not going to get angry over it either... unless it has a negative fiscal impact on the state or private companies.
...this should be NO SURPRISE!!!!!!!!!!!
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.