"Gary, you're going to have to show me that you're still dedicated to the team. Now $*#& my *#!%.."
Posted on 01/23/2006 7:40:24 AM PST by Millee
niversity of Florida employees have to pledge that they're having sex with their domestic partners before qualifying for benefits under a new health care plan at the university.
The partners of homosexual and heterosexual employees are eligible for coverage under UF's plan, which will take effect in February. The enrollment process began this month, and some employees have expressed concern about an affidavit that requires a pledge of sexual activity.
Fielding questions about the pledge at a Faculty Senate meeting Thursday, UF's vice president of human resources said he's heard concerns about the affidavit, though overall feedback about the plan has been positive.
"I would say 95 percent of the affidavit is fine," Kyle Cavanaugh said in an interview after the meeting.
In addition to declaring joint financial obligations, prospective enrollees must "have been in a non-platonic relationship for the preceding 12 months," according to the affidavit.
Marylou Behnke, a UF senator, told Cavanaugh she found the requirement "offensive."
As a member of the Senate, representing faculty in UF's College of Medicine, Behnke said she was compelled to learn more about UF's plan. She said she was taken aback to find that employees would be required to swear to prior sexual activity, a standard not applied to married couples covered by UF's primary health care plan.
"Are you going to police it?" Behnke asked Cavanaugh.
Cavanaugh said he had no plans to personally enforce the sex pledge. The "non-platonic" clause is "increasingly standard" in domestic partnership plans, Cavanaugh said. The clause is one of several methods used to legally ensure that an employer is only obligated to cover employees in a committed relationship, not longtime roommates.
Shands HealthCare, which began offering domestic partnership benefits this month, also requires that employees declare a "non-platonic" relationship. Shands is an affiliate of UF, supporting the university's education and research efforts, but it is a private nonprofit entity with an independent health care plan. Like UF, Shands chose to offer domestic partnership benefits in order to stay competitive, said Kim Rose, Shands spokeswoman. Rose said she did not know whether Shands' Board of Directors, which approved the plan, was influenced by UF's decision to offer domestic benefits.
Concerns about the "non-platonic" clause may lead UF to change the language of the affidavit, Cavanaugh said.
"I would anticipate we would take a hard look at trying to modify it," he said.
Any modifications to the plan won't likely be made in the first enrollment cycle, which ends Jan. 30, Cavanaugh said. But by October, when employees enroll for benefits again, there may be changes to the affidavit, he said.
Between five and 10 people have enrolled in the plan already, Cavanaugh said, and more than 100 have attended orientations to learn about the benefits. UF officials anticipate that as many as 120 people will enroll in the plan, which will cost the university about $1 million a year.
Confidentiality is promised to UF employees enrolled in any health care plan, but Behnke said she had concerns about whether the affidavit might lead to discrimination if it ended up in the wrong hands. Pledging an active homosexual relationship, as the affidavit requires for gay couples, could potentially bar an individual from participation in organizations like the Boy Scouts or the military, Behnke said.
Kim Tanzer, chair of the Faculty Senate, said she could understand why some faculty might view the affidavit as invasive.
"I can see (Behnke's) point," she said. "If you ask married folks if they're in a platonic relationship, that's a personal question."
The U of Florida took grant money from here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010
That created that requirement.
Is UF a private school? It's dumb question probably for FL natives but maybe others are wondering the same thing and just not asking.
The definition of sex depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Will they be offering a "safe sex" premium/benefit, like they do with "safe drivers"?
If so, then they'll be discriminating against heterosexual couples who are trying to reproduce (not that that's not "safe" in one sense, but it's not "safe" in the same sense that "safe sex" is "safe").
Are they going to verify THAT? If so, how?
No, it's not a private school, it's a state university (University of Florida), which is why I wandered in over here to this thread, given it's an alma mater of mine.
Now I read that they've figured out how to jack yet another million dollars from student fees and taxpayers dollars, all for a coupla' hundred "employees."
I don't see that this as even a remotely equitable plan. Insure individuals or don't but the "partner" gimmick is looking more and more like a gimmick with every passing explanation.
So, when will they start providing employee veterinary insurance coverage? After all, pets are members of the family, they're dependents, too!
/ S
So I have a question... if you can prove through video that you have had sex with an employee of this company in the past, are you eligible for insurance benifits? It would certainly seem to be an argument you can make.
Hey great idea! Our little darlings cost us a fortune every year in vet bills. I'm all for it (as long as I don't have to sign an affidavit saying we have sex with them!) Eeewwwww....
"Gary, you're going to have to show me that you're still dedicated to the team. Now $*#& my *#!%.."
The ORIGINAL reason argued for non-married but living together benefits was that they might produce children. It was seen as a way of supporting the concept that a man and woman might produce a child in need of benefits and then the fathers/mothers benifits could be used to that end. (people save the one example, this is about promoting a general umbrella policy regarding production and protection of children.)
It must be this university has a HUGE problem with benefits fraud. This is what happens when the policy is to reward recreational sex.
Marriage is a legal institution and entirely different than mere cohabitation.
Cohabitation is to have the benefits of recreational sex without the obligations of a legally binding marriage institution.
Keep in mind also that FL does not have common law marriage and cohabition does not establish "palimony".
Essentially this policy is correct and cuts to the chase. The benefits are established to accomodate those who have a commitment based on recreational sex.
If a "couple" has a comitment based on some other recreational activity, the courthouse is just down the street for the filing of suits.
~;-]
With any luck, I will, that is.
is that pulled chicken or pulled beef?
teehee
You are a rascal. :o)
jerked or pulled?
I need to towel off.
sorry, i'm bad today. I'll probably get pulled.
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.