Insurance company rep: "We recognize gay marriage in this state, so male or female, doesn't matter, your spouse is covered. Because of this, we don't cover unmarried domestic partners of any kind. Male or female."
Even though they end up insuring far fewer people in the end, I still can't help but feel a little heartwarmed.
(The question of polyamorous marriage kinda runs into a hitch here. Asking an insurance company to cover my husband or wife shouldn't matter to them [actually, women have higher healthcare costs, but as long as the overall population is still 50-50 it doesn't matter who's paired with whom], but asking them to cover my husband and wife would be a different thing. Maybe they'd just have to say "okay, but we're gonna charge you for it" and come up with a new "Family Plus" rate category.)
Arrgghh...ridiculous. People should get basic health care, full stop, in a first world nation. Tying health care to employment and/or relationship status doesn't make sense ethically or financially (employers should not be the conduit for delivering health coverage..that's not their mission).ReplyDelete
And it's health CARE not "health insurance" that is a basic need. But much as with my dream of college football playoff system, there's too much filthy lucre involved for the people in the current system to even consider a change.
I'm taking a job Canada in 2011 and am highly impressed with my potential coverage and cost, even figuring in taxes. And they don't give a shit who you live with, pay bills with, fuck, or have kids with (or not).
Well it would have cost roughly $450.00 a year each to insure the entire United States population, including Illegal Aliens. If the administration had chose to work through current insurance companies. They chose to rob the taxpayer at the highest level. This wasn't about providing health care to all, the cuts we're seeing are proof of that. They just wanted to illegally grab control of a profitable industry. CANADIANS were testifying against the Obama care bill.ReplyDelete
Good luck in Canada Kaija. I think you'll find out the difference in what a government says and does. It's a bit sharper up there. I have been treated kinder by armed SWAT in the US, than by a Mountie anywhere north of 49 degrees.
Money is a red herring in the healthcare kerfuffle. We don't have enough doctors, nurses, hospital beds, or medications for everyone--how much it costs or who pays won't change that, at least not quickly.ReplyDelete
Good luck in Canada Kaija. I think you'll find out the difference in what a government says and does. It's a bit sharper up there. I have been treated kinder by armed SWAT in the US, than by a Mountie anywhere north of 49 degrees.ReplyDelete
Have you actually lived here or did you just come up, piss off our law enforcement somehow, and go back home again? 'Cause the latter probably wouldn't give you an accurate impression of what the country is like. Not to a layperson, anyway.
Yeah, I've been figuring that insurance coverage will be one of the biggest (sensible) issues whenever poly marriage comes up for discussion. That and citizenship.ReplyDelete
Regardless of whether you feel healthcare should be government provided, there are good reasons not to tie it to your employer. The main reason it's currently set up that way is the perverse tax structure.ReplyDelete
Ideally, you might simply be able to buy a household plan for X adults (and Y children).
Thebrunettesblog - Actually, I think the insurance thing isn't that big a deal, considering that families with eight kids are covered under the same plans as families with one. The cost of an additional spouse or two can't be such a different risk.ReplyDelete