A bill allowing partners of gay and lesbian state workers to get health insurance coverage is headed to the governor.
The bill got final approval Tuesday in the House. Same-sex partners who've been in a committed relationship with a state employee for at least a year would qualify for coverage. The sponsor, Democratic Rep. Mark Ferrandino of Denver, says gay couples don't have the option of marrying and it's only fair to provide an alternative.
Republican Rep. Kent Lambert of Colorado Springs says it will be costly and is unfair to heterosexual couples who are committed but not married.
Opponents also say the measure violates the will of the voters, who passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage and rejected domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.
Pragmatic response: we probably shouldn't saddle the state, that's already struggling to fund it's state budget, with more entitlement expenses.
Ideological response: this is why the government shouldn't be in the business of healthcare to begin with. Yet, this stance doesn't make privatized health insurance any better. As in, how does it make sense that the most standard way people get insurance now is through their employer?
Posts
2 comments:
Right, but just because they qualify for the healthcare does not mean that it will be free to them. Most companies that offer healthcare to a spouse comes directly out of their paycheck. The company does not cover it and usually does not cover the employee entirely. This sounds like it would be an avenue for people to join a group plan, which would be at a lower cost than if they were to get healthcare on their own.
Ah,
Good to know, but I'd want to see the specifics of the bill before I went one way or the other with it. In principle, I don't really have a problem with sharing benefits for people in committed relationships, but I don't hold that principle strongly and might be persuaded out of it with some good arguments.
Post a Comment