Kalamazoo Will No Longer Provide Health Benefits To Gay Partners

[gam197]

mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-44/1180986013217020.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

I think single people should provide their own insurance coverage.

By DAVID EGGERT
The Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The City of Kalamazoo no longer will offer health insurance benefits to the partners of gay workers, becoming Michigan’s first public employer to take away such benefits in the wake of a 2004 ban against gay marriage.

Kalamazoo City Manager Kenneth Collard confirmed Monday that the city will eliminate domestic partner benefits for four non-unionized employees effective June 30. He cited a May 23 order from the Michigan Supreme Court.

The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a state Court of Appeals decision blocking same-sex benefits, but it also let the earlier decision take immediate effect.

 

[Cari]

Maybe someone can explain this to me, but how can companies that do provide same-sex benefits justify denying them to, say, roommates?

Let’s say Fred applies to have Jim covered on his insurance. Fred and Jim aren’t “partners”. Just for fun, let’s say they ARE gay, but aren’t in a romantic relationship, just roommates. How does Fred’s employer monitor this?

What if Fred applies to have Jim covered in his insurance. Fred and Jim AREN’T gay, but are roommates. How does Fred’s employer monitor this?

What if Fred and Jim USED to be homosexual “partners”, but have since broken up. Jim still lives with Fred- does he still get covered by Fred’s insurance?

Good grief. I’ve been to Kalamazoo- it’s too small a town to have the resources to monitor all these possibilities.

 

[boppaid]

Maybe someone can explain this to me, but how can companies that do provide same-sex benefits justify denying them to, say, roommates?

Let’s say Fred applies to have Jim covered on his insurance. Fred and Jim aren’t “partners”. Just for fun, let’s say they ARE gay, but aren’t in a romantic relationship, just roommates. How does Fred’s employer monitor this?

What if Fred applies to have Jim covered in his insurance. Fred and Jim AREN’T gay, but are roommates. How does Fred’s employer monitor this?

What if Fred and Jim USED to be homosexual “partners”, but have since broken up. Jim still lives with Fred- does he still get covered by Fred’s insurance?

Good grief. I’ve been to Kalamazoo- it’s too small a town to have the resources to monitor all these possibilities.

Good questions. That is one of the main reasons I support civil unions…a good way to make sure the companies providing benies aren’t cheated. And a good way to ensure domestic partners are given certain rights when their partner is sick, in the hospital, etc. Just a good idea all around, imo.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Cari
Good grief. I’ve been to Kalamazoo- it’s too small a town to have the resources to monitor all these possibilities.

Exactly. Also now the NH has Civil Unions they are paying for pension, health and dental insurance. NH has no money. It’s main source of income is property tax which is pretty high and that goes to the schools so this will mean more taxes for a population already strapped.

Also wives don’t even get their husband’s pensions. They sign off on their husband 's pension to get 3 or 4 thousand more a year so he finally retire. They get zero. The sad part is that in state jobs, they don’t take out social security so that leaves the wife with no pension and no social security unless she has worked and earned her own.

A single man/woman can have sex with a single man/woman and get their pension. Upside Down Values.

 

[gam197]

Interestingly NH now has passed a new law which says businesses will pay for **divorced spouses health insurance for three years. **Instead of getting COBRA which is a very expensive deal, they will be allowed regular medical insurance which has employers in an uproar.

In Civil Unions, It is OK to pay for the estimated tens of thousands in NH that are gay for the rest of their lives in health, dental and pensions because the state taxpayers are paying for it.

citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070606/NEWS0201/70606048/-1/CITIZEN

 

[Riley259]

mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-44/1180986013217020.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

I think single people should provide their own insurance coverage.

By DAVID EGGERT
The Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The City of Kalamazoo no longer will offer health insurance benefits to the partners of gay workers, becoming Michigan’s first public employer to take away such benefits in the wake of a 2004 ban against gay marriage.

Kalamazoo City Manager Kenneth Collard confirmed Monday that the city will eliminate domestic partner benefits for four non-unionized employees effective June 30. He cited a May 23 order from the Michigan Supreme Court.

The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a state Court of Appeals decision blocking same-sex benefits, but it also let the earlier decision take immediate effect.

Finally, some sanity in a sea of psychosis.

 

[boppaid]

I think single people should provide their own insurance coverage.

Just to clarify, you believe that if you are married, you are entitled to coverage, yet if you are single, “too bad, you’re on your own”? What about single parents? What about married people who never have children? I think I must be misunderstanding you. (Could very well be,…it’s been a LONG week! )

 

[gam197]

Insurance coverage for spouses was put in to cover the spouse who stayed home to care for the children.

Some countries give extra money for each child produced. In the US they give the benefit of health care to spouses.

Single people do carry the burden of taking care of themselves. My single children,{males and females) often do without insurance until they get a job that gives them medical and it often takes a few years without coverage. My single daughter does have children and she again provides medical for her children through her job.

**Why should a single male be entitled to another single male’s insurance benefit from his job?
**
In NH they are trying to help the divorced spouse by giving coverage for only three years so she can get on her feet but that has not passed legislation where Civil Unions already has.