Skip to comments.UT faculty senate to consider extending benefits to employees' partners
Posted on 03/11/2012 6:29:56 AM PDT by HogsBreath
UT faculty senate to consider extending benefits to employees' partners
Wendy Bach pays more for health care for her family than most of her co-workers at the University of Tennessee do.
The law professor moved here from New York City in 2010 with her partner of 19 years and their 8-year-old daughter. And while Bach's daughter is included on her employer health insurance, her partner is not.
Instead, their family pays for a separate insurance policy for her partner, a longtime educator who hasn't been working since they moved to Knoxville.
(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...
Just go back to Sodom and get your coverage there.
It would be nice to see them call “partner” what it really is, “female paramour.”
What if she were living with her sister? That’s “family” isn’t it? - but no, that would not be coverable.
Flukin’ idiot knew the benefits when she took the job. Deal with it.
The rot spreads.
Oh, the hugh manatee.
These people imagine they can move in and impose their views on others.
No, because I don’t my government pretending that homosexuality is normal.
Another liberal that goes to a college knowing fully well it wont give what she wants.
Uhhh... it's because they CAN. Watch this "university" cave (as many of the faculty were waiting for just such an incident to give them cover) in the name of fairness. The local news will trumpet the decision, will interview a few professional radicals disguised as students who love it, and we'll accelerate down that slippery slope even faster...
The division of the company where I work (well, up until recently, “worked”) was recently purchased outright by a much, much larger company. Company ex would cover your significant other under their health/dental plan. The now-new employer, the big outfit, will ONLY cover your significant other IF he/she is the same sex as you.
IOW, your significant other is only covered if you’re gay. Sucks. I pointed out the discriminatory nature of this to the guy from HR while going over my formal offer letter to “come across” to the new company. He agreed. Nonetheless, it’s the reality, I knew it coming in, and I opted to take the offer....meaning separate insurance will have to be purchased.
You either live with the terms of your new employer or you don’t when you’re deciding to take an offer. This woman knew her significant other would not be covered, took the job, then demands they cover her. It just doesn’t work that way unless you’re eaten up with an entitlement mentality.
She probably wants her contraception paid for also, oh wait....
The lifestyle in this case is perverted, however there is something to be said for coverage because you still are PAYING for the partner.
This is why Vermont went to Civil Unions instead of "Marriage." Legally it's justified. As much as I think the life style is convoluted my intellectual honesty says Civil Unions are equitable.
Not contraception, maybe... but sex toys. Are you and Rush Limbaugh going to say she doesn’t have the right to spend your money on her sex toys. Are you actually going to try to fight that battle?
It would be interesting to know if she was intentionally recruited as a test case.
Are they married “partners”?