Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:51:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2785 times
|
| |
|
|
I don't see a problem with this either, except....
Some insurance companies essentially provide a "Bulk Discount" for dependents -
the more you have, the less you pay per dependent. I think this is wrong. You
are encouraging multiple dependents in this way. Set a rate per dependent, and
*keep to it*, no matter how many.
I could see this could get interesting in an extended family - one or more
persons would work simply for the insurance coverage, with their entire paycheck
being chewed up in insurance premiums. Others would work to put food on the
table. Again, I don't see a problem with this, as long as the family unit as a
whole is pulling their fair share of the insurance burden for the insurance
company/public at large.
Frank Filz wrote:
> "David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message
> news:HzIHou.1yEv@lugnet.com...
> > I think the legal line has to be drawn somewhere. Take health care for • example.
> > You're allowed to provide health care for your spouse, which is great if • they
> > wouldn't otherwise get it. But as soon as you start getting into polygamy, • you
> > have to wonder where the line gets drawn. Provide health care for your 80 • wives
> > & husbands? That's rather unfair to the insurance company, and people • could take
> > unnecessary advantage of such a lack of restriction. I suppose I might be • able
> > to be convinced that the limit should be *raised*, but not eliminated. I'm
> > pretty comfortable with the idea of a single spouse.
>
> Insurance companies have always had to deal with an unbounded number of
> dependants - children. My employer sets it's rates of employee contribution
> for insurance for dependants to account for this (you pay per dependant
> basically). So I don't see a problem with multiple spouses for things like
> this.
>
> Frank
--
Tom Stangl
*http://www.vfaq.com/
*DSM Visual FAQ home
*http://www.vfaq.net/
*Prius Visual FAQ Home
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| "David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:HzIHou.1yEv@lugnet.com... (...) example. (...) they (...) you (...) wives (...) could take (...) able (...) Insurance companies have always had to deal with an unbounded number of dependants - (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
