Conference 7.286::digital

         Such a change in Digital policy will have an impact on most of us. 
    If everything else remains the same, the impact should be positive for
    most employees involved.  However, if the additional costs involved are
    spread across the spectrum, two things may occur: 
    
         1. Increased employee contributions for some benefits.
         2. Reduced coverage for some benefits.
    
         While the article tends to focus on the new benefits for gay
    employees, I see some gains for single heterosexual employees.  
    The current policy gives a distinct compensational advantage to married
    employees (especially those with children).  The new policy could give
    a bit more parity to those who have not made that legal move, but have
    loved ones who deserve similar treatment.  It all depends upon how the
    policy is written.  
    
         The wild part about this is the potential ripple effect.  Will I
    be able to get Company Picnic tickets for all 4 of my girlfriends 
    (just kidding)?  Will I be able to get all of them medical and dental
    coverage?  Will they fly them out with me to do house hunting when I
    relocate?  I know, they'll only allow one.  I guess that should be
    enough.
    
                                        Greg      

    You say that the current policy gives a distinct compensational
    advantage to married employees (especially those who have children).
    I don't know about anyone else, but I pay over $1000.00 per year to see
    that my family is covered by insurance. 
    
    I see some problems with this, the primary one being, how do you determine 
    what relationships qualify as family?  This has got to be defined.  
    
    Mike  

    Shouldn't we sue Lotus for the "look and feel" of Soapbox?

    By contrast to Digital's "Valuing Differences" program, I support
    Lotus' decision.  Lotus' program grants equal opportunity to people,
    without trying to push anything on other employees.
    
    There is an even more enlightened policy possible:  Instead of doling
    out benefits via one program or another and specifying the conditions
    on each, a company could make available funds to employees to allocate
    among available benefits as they see fit.  Each employee would have an
    amount of money to spend determined by their salary, and unrelated to
    marital status or other factors irrelevant to the employment
    relationship.  This money could be placed into plans for medical care,
    dental care, life insurance, retirement, or other benefits according to
    each employee's needs.
    
    The advantage of this program would be that it provides equal pay for
    equal work and gets the employer ought of making controversial
    decisions like whether or not homosexual couples ought to be recognized
    -- everybody could make their own private arrangements without
    judgement by the company.
    
    An even cleaner relationship would be one in which the employer gives
    the employee real money and allows them to spend it as if they had
    actually earned it and were entitled to a free choice about how to
    spend it.
    
    
    				-- edp

| There is an even more enlightened policy possible:  Instead of doling
| out benefits via one program or another and specifying the conditions
| on each, a company could make available funds to employees to allocate
| among available benefits as they see fit.  Each employee would have an
| amount of money to spend determined by their salary, 

	Eric, do you mean the ones with less salary would get less money? If
so, doesn't that hurt the little person? If someone who was making $30,000 had a
SO and 5 kids to support got X% based on her/his salary, another who makes 
$50,000 with a SO and one kid got more because of their salary, would this
really work? Do you think that other factors should come into play with a
policy like this? Would it be fair to have more coverage for one person than
another?

| An even cleaner relationship would be one in which the employer gives
| the employee real money and allows them to spend it as if they had
| actually earned it and were entitled to a free choice about how to
| spend it.

	One thing about this program. Does the money that the employers put
into the medical coverages, life insurance, etc equal the amout of coverage
that we have? For example, if the employer puts in $1000/year for benifits
under the present DEC plan, do we only get a $1000 of coverage back? Would DEC
give us an amount that would equal the amount of coverage we now have?



Glen

    An interesting note is that Lotus' program does not allow heterosexual
    couples who are not married but are in a committed relationship to get
    the family benefits. I'm told that this is because heterosexuals have
    the option to get married and homosexual couples do not. Still seems
    unfair to me though. I believe that if Digital creates a similar
    program they should not discriminate against heterosexual couples.

    			Alfred

            <<< Note 1649.6 by CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist" >>>

    >An interesting note is that Lotus' program does not allow heterosexual
    >couples who are not married but are in a committed relationship to get
    >the family benefits. 
    
         I wasn't aware of that.  That seems to take all the fairness out
    of a move, the whole purpose of which was (allegedly) to make things 
    more fair.
    
                                      Greg
    

    I seem to recall that a important clause of this agreement required the
    couple to legally tie their assets together - with assistance from
    Lotus lawyers.  In effect, a legal bond very similiar to matrimony.
    

    One more step in the moral decline of this country, and one more
    victory for those leading immoral lifestyles, while hiding under
    the curtain of political correctness.
    
    This was a horrible decision on the part of lotus, and I hope DEC
    can hold out against the braying of a similar very loud, very small
    minority in this company.
    
    Please spare me the tirades about what-is-morality and all that crap.
                     

So what about a sibling group living together?  Say a dozen or so single or
divorced siblings (who clearly can't marry each other).  Could make for some
mighty large families.

    Personally, I love my cat.  He sits in my lap every evening, and 
    sleeps with me quite often.  He is totally dependent on me for
    housing, food, and medical care.  Our relationship is now ten years
    old.  Should I expect DEC to cover him on my health insurance??
    
    

    There are committed relationships that don't have the word "married"
    attached to them for one reason or another.  For one thing, it is
    a tax disadvantage.
    
    If you don't like these other "committed relationships", don't do 
    it.  Don't judge others though.
    
    B

    One thing that we're definitively lacking here is the *number* of
    people who would take advantage of the so-called "non-traditional
    family" benefits.

    I asked a (gay) friend of mine how many homosexuals would possibly take
    advantage of such a program at Digital and the number was "50" couples. 
    I asked him how many heterosexual couples would possibly take advantage
    of such a program and the number was "500".

    Agreement?  Disagreement?

    If the benefits are extended to gay and not heterosexual couples, I
    venture to say that the wrath of the public will descend upon Digital
    Equipment Corporation in the same manner that it has descended upon
    Lotus.

    Let's get some  N U M B E R S  before we go off the deep end ...

    I CERTAINLY can't afford any more deductions from my pay !!!

    Bubba

   re: 1649.11 <NOTIME::SACKS>

   Gerald,

   >So what about a sibling group living together?  Could make for some mighty
   >large families.

       Sure, I was thinking of having the aging folks move in, sign them onto
   the plan, and hire a home health aid to care for them while I'm at work (on
   the company, of course).  Beat putting them in an old age home!!!

   Tony

          -< If he can support is non-relitive, why can I support... >-

	Sure, just put in writing that all of your finances are being tied
together and there shouldn't be a problem. ;-) You would have to choose only
one person though......


Glen

Why must a choice of what constitutes a "family" be limited to just
one other individual?  If the rules are going to be changed, why
aren't those who have more than one adult as part of the family
accomodated?  :-)

				- - Steve

re .12:

Does the Digital Medical Plan cover hairballs?

Re: .2

>   I don't know about anyone else, but I pay over $1000.00 per year to see
>   that my family is covered by insurance. 

And how much would you be paying for family coverage if DEC weren't paying a
large share of the tab and getting you a good rate trough a group plan?


Re: .4

>   An even cleaner relationship would be one in which the employer gives
>   the employee real money and allows them to spend it as if they had
>   actually earned it and were entitled to a free choice about how to
>   spend it.
>   
>   
>   				-- edp

Hmmm . . . do you know where your benefits are coming from?  DEC, as a large
employer, gets a  big reduction in the premiums for different benefits like
health insurance (or HMO membership), disability, and so on.  Originally,
the company would pay these premiums outright as a way of attracting good
people ("And, if you come work for us, you and your spouse and your 2.6
kids will be fully covered for 100% of non-elective surgery and 80% of
elective surgery and your spouse will get 2 times your salary if you
should die [4 times if you die on business] . . ." - makes me want to
sign right up!).

A few years back, the combination of rising costs for benefits and changes
in the tax laws ended up making things a lot more complex.  (And how come
"improvements" in the tax laws always make things more complex?)  You now
have more choices about what your benefits are, and you get to trade
coverage for cash.

The rules, though, are set by a combination of government regulation and
free-market underwriters, so you can be sure any choices will be difficult!

Anyway, back to the topic at hand - perhaps a still-more-flexible benefits
plan like you describe could accomodate families that don't have the standard
structure without raising the overall costs for coverage.

				- - Steve

>   One more step in the moral decline of this country, and one more
>   victory for those leading immoral lifestyles, while hiding under
>   the curtain of political correctness.
>   
>   This was a horrible decision on the part of lotus, and I hope DEC
>   can hold out against the braying of a similar very loud, very small
>   minority in this company.
>   
>   Please spare me the tirades about what-is-morality and all that crap.

Please spare us the tirades about anyone who differs from yourself being
"immoral".  If you wish to renew once again the debate about the moral
or immoral character of homosexuals as they relate to work at Digital,
go open your own topic.

				- - Steve

Re:  .20

Sorry, forgot to add the reference - I was quoting the obnoxious
reply .10!

				- - Steve

    
    	Will this have any effect on the ages of children who are covered
    	by Company medical insurance, I wonder?
    
    	My son is "doing" college from home (he has his own floor in the
    	finished basement of my new house.)  He's still covered for medical
    	and dental without a problem now, but if his college years extend 
    	past 22 (and I think they will,) we'll have to find other insurance 
    	for him in a few years.
    
    	It would be great if I could keep him on my current medical plan
    	while I'm still supporting him in my house.

>  <<< Note 1649.18 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
>
>Does the Digital Medical Plan cover hairballs?

    God, what a straight line....
    
    tim
    

Actually if the company wanted to do it, you could all have want you wanted!
(Except for the cat, government would frown on it :-))  It is called a
flexible benefit plan.  Each employee gets X dollars to spend on benefits of
their choosing from an approved list.  So if you wanted more vacation and 
less medical coverage, you could have it.  Likewise, if you wanted lots of
life insurance but no dental, no problem.

Now all you have to do is convince the company to put in such a plan.  One
drawback - I think that the plans have a basic structure that defines the 
amount that can be spent as a percentage of income.  Don't quote me on that
as I have not checked with my SO who administers these types of plans.

Lee G.

    Re .18 ..... I would think so....always has for me (snicker-snicker).

    <
    < Re:20/21
    
    Obnoxious? I didn't find it obnoxious. 
    
    g.t.
    
    
    

| Why must a choice of what constitutes a "family" be limited to just
| one other individual?  If the rules are going to be changed, why
| aren't those who have more than one adult as part of the family
| accomodated?  :-)

	Hmmmm..... maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't the Lotus plan opening up the
way it did for a spouse who you're not married to but are tied together
financially? I guess spouse would constitute one, right? What I don't know
about it is did it include the children of the SO?


Glen

    Anent .10: Dick, I want to understand what you meant more clearly.  Do
    you think Digital should not extend its benefits to gay couples, men
    and women living together, or both?

    re -1 .... you got it.  I don't think Digital should extend it's
    benefits to gay couples, OR men and women living together.  Seeing
    as you asked, yes, I think both situations are immoral.  Or, am I
    not entitled to my opinion?  Hope not.

re .29

You are certainly entitled to your opinion - what you aren't entitled to is an
unchallenged opinion...

/Dave

So, is this topic something that Digital is really considering for the
1992 calendar year?

Beth

    I hope so, Beth.
    
    /Greg
    
    

    Do you think DEC's objective is to provide employees with benefits,
    medical or otherwise?  Naaa... we're in business to make money for the
    stockholders, period, that's all.  It's true that the benefits package
    serves to entice potential employees to come on board... and... it's a
    win win situation because of the reduced group rates which a large
    employer can take advantage of when buying such benefits. However, it's
    part of the expense of getting and keeping good people, not a charity
    that should be dispensed with "fairness" in mind (from the
    money-oriented viewpoint of the stockholders).
    
    I predict these things will iron themselves out in the end.  I'm single
    but have a girlfriend.  If I'm offered two jobs, one from DEC with
    benefits extended to both of us and the other from Company 'X' which 
    wants to see a marriage certificate or a heteroseaxual relationship,
    well, it's a factor.  In fact, evenly distributing benefits across the
    population of employees might serve to eliminate some forms of
    discrimination.  Think of it this way, all other things being equal,
    you have two candidates for an open position, one is young, single and
    in good health, the other is married, with 8 dependents and has a heart
    condition.  Who's going to be able to do the job for less overall
    (including insurance expenses)?  On the other hand, if the benefits 
    expense was equal for the equal salary the two are competing for, then 
    the bias toward the single candidate would be eliminated.
    
    The "benefits as a function of salary" option is the fairest, but then
    again, who ever said life was fair.  If you see companies adopting this
    philosophy, you'll probably see an disproportionately large segment of
    the single and homosexual workforce migrate in that direction... a
    strategy worth considering by companies competing for those workers.
    
    Myself?  I'd love to put my girlfriend in the medical plan.  It would
    make her life a lot easier and therefor mine too.  Till then....
    
    Dave 

	"The quality of the wool depends on the keeping of the sheep."

		Russian Proverb

    Has anyone ever been asked for proof that the person they listed as a
    spouse is actually married to them? I've never been asked. Of course
    we use the same last name but that means very little. I imagine all
    sorts of lights go off if you and your spouse have the same gender
    but other than that who asks for proof?

    			Alfred

DEC isn't at the head of the pack when it comes to benefits, so I'd be very
surprised if this happens soon.

An early reply mentioned that Lotus's decision caused an uproar.  Could
someone expand on this?

    re: .35
    
    I haven't been asked for proof since I left California in 1969.  I'm
    not sure I could produce my marriage certificate if I had to.  (Perhaps
    my wife knows where it is.)
        John Sauter

.36> An early reply mentioned that Lotus's decision caused an uproar.  Could
.36> someone expand on this?
    
    Lotus allowed homosexual couples to take advantage of corporate
    benefits, but, did not allow committed heterosexual couples the same
    privelege.  From my limited perspective, that is not fair.  If you
    allow one, you should allow the other.
    
    As I said in .14 ... I wonder just now many het/homo couples would take
    advantage of such a program ... I personally suspect very few ...
    as was noted in the infamous 1616 a speaker was imported from Boston
    for the GLB awareness day because people at DEC were afraid to
    participate ... I doubt seriously they'll belly up to the bar for
    benefits.
    
    Bubba

    re a few back about spousal proof. No, i didn't have to show any. My
    divorce fairly coincided with my hire date. I was requested to show
    proof of court ordered requirements to cover my kids with med
    insurance. This was from a personel rep. I argued about right to
    privacy around my divorce agreement. She wanted copies for my permanent
    file. I refused. I compromised by showing her the agreement and that
    worked. I think she was just being nosy or trying a CYA thing in case
    the question came up.
    
    BTW. This is a LOUD VOTE TO AGREE WITH THE PEOPLE WHO THINK LIVEIN
    LOVERS/HOUSEMATES WHATEVER SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN BENEFITS COVERAGE,
    REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR ANY OTHER KIND. 
    
    Phil

| Lotus allowed homosexual couples to take advantage of corporate
| benefits, but, did not allow committed heterosexual couples the same
| privelege.  From my limited perspective, that is not fair.  If you
| allow one, you should allow the other.

	I also feel that both should be allowed. The only thing I can think of
why they didn't is that heterosexual couples can get married if they wanted to. 

	Back in the beginning of this string someone mentioned that the couples 
had to show proof that their assets were tied together. Is this true? 

| As I said in .14 ... I wonder just now many het/homo couples would take
| advantage of such a program ... I personally suspect very few ...
| as was noted in the infamous 1616 a speaker was imported from Boston
| for the GLB awareness day because people at DEC were afraid to
| participate ... 

	Bubba, was this the infamous speaker that was supposed to go to
Colorado? If so, I thought it was found that the way the person who said this
to be true just interpreted it wrong and the actual note stated that the 
program in Colorado was based on the program by <insert name here>? If this is
the case, what are ya talkin' about? If not, what are ya talkin' about?

| I doubt seriously they'll belly up to the bar for benefits.

	Jerry, what do you mean by this? Who needs to belly up? I would think
that if someone is in a committed relationship, that MOST of those couples
would take advantage of it IF the coverage they now have isn't as good as the
coverage DEC is offering. There is a big difference between going to personell
to get coverage and speaking in front of a room of people. 



Glen

re .38:

In .14 you said that wrath has descended upon Lotus.  Does this mean
Jerry Beeler's wrath, or something more widespread?

    re:.32
    
    I look at personal names all the time. I find /Greg's particularly
    ironic. Am I the only one?
    
    Ken

| I look at personal names all the time. I find /Greg's particularly
| ironic. Am I the only one?

	I like it..... ;-)


Glen

.40> Back in the beginning of this string someone mentioned that the couples 
.40> had to show proof that their assets were tied together. Is this true? 

And I wonder just what will suffice as "proof"?  Depends upon what state
you live in as to just how "tied" the assets can be.  Legal implications
here are/could_be horrendous if such "proof" is required.

.40> Bubba, was this the infamous speaker that was supposed to go to
.40> Colorado?

No.  Someone asked why it was necessary to get a "consultant" in from
Boston for the *Marlboro* day ... the response was that DEC people are
afraid to participate ...  please don't ask me to wade through 1616 to
find the comments, but, if you insist, I will.

.40> Jerry, what do you mean by this? Who needs to belly up? I would think
.40> that if someone is in a committed relationship, that MOST of those couples
.40> would take advantage of it IF the coverage they now have isn't as good
.40> as the coverage DEC is offering. There is a big difference between going
.40> to personell to get coverage and speaking in front of a room of people. 

Oh .. I just couldn't make all this "fit" together .. an "awareness day"
that people wouldn't participate in (due to fear) so an outside person
is brought in and then *signing* papers where benefits are involved and
"MOST" couples would take advantage of ... it all just didn't fit ... then
again, maybe "money speaks"?

.41> In .14 you said that wrath has descended upon Lotus.

I can't remember where I saw the documentation about the negative press
on Lotus ... I'll go see if I can find it when I get time.

.41> Does this mean Jerry Beeler's wrath, or something more widespread?

My "wrath" is normally manifested in a quest for facts.  As above, you
want to know about the negative press that LOTUS got ... and rightfully
so, I'll see if I can find it (I distinctly remember some comment to the effect
that LOTUS was "rethinking" the entire program).  I wanted to know how much
these benefits (when/if extended) will cost Digital.  Will it cost *me* any
more money? How many people will/may take advantage of such benefits?  Are
the real $$$ of such an insignificant amount that we really shouldn't worry
about it?  When I ask such questions, and, they go unanswered (as they do
for the most part - primarily because they're embarrassing?), it *does*
tell me something.

We, Digital Equipment Corporation, along with a lot of other people in this
business, are in one heck of a fight for our very survival.  The business
environment is worse now than I've seen it in 15 years.  I am in sales and
negative press from any perspective concerns me and it should possibly
concern you.   We have to SURVIVE as a viable entity or any discussion of
"benefits" is purely academic.  We must FIRST be profitable.  At the present
our overhead is a little on the high side.  It's a simple matter of
survival - first.

Bubba

    Thanks, Dick, for clarifying your position.  I fully understand your
    position that unmarried couples should not receive medical benefits.
    It is consistent, anyway...
    
    There was an interesting piece in the Sunday Globe the other day about
    families.  Before World War II or thereabouts the US family was
    "extended," with more than two generations living together.  (For want
    of a better metaphor, I'll call this the Walton family.)  In the
    Fifties, the concept of the "nuclear" family was advanced.  (You know:
    Ozzie and Harriet, Dennis the Menace, Father Knows Best, Leave It to
    Beaver... 8^)  Today the concept of the extended family is making a
    comeback.
    
    How is this relevant to changing definitions of family?  For one thing,
    what is the basic definition?  Husband, wife, and children was not the
    norm for long, and is not the norm now.  The average marriage in the US
    lasts, I believe, only five years.  Most families are not what you'd
    term nuclear any more.
    
    I am uncomfortable with extending benefits to unmarried couples because
    my image is of two people living together who don't plan on staying
    together, scamming the company for the short term.  In light of the
    changes to families in recent years, it's fair to suggest that a
    married couple is not fundamentally more stable than a live-in couple,
    regardless of sex.
    
    (P.S.: My next wedding anniversary will be my 14th.  We are thus
    exceptional 8^)

    Perhaps the "nuclear" family is an anomaly of the fifties and sixties.
    My parents certainly were raised in an extended family, as were my
    grandparents.  Also, the percentage of unmarried persons was much
    higher before WWII than it is today.
    
    The kinds of medical benefits we take for granted did not exist then,
    and aren't likely to remain in existance much longer either.  They are
    another short-term deviation from the norm.
    
    It is depressingly clear that the definition of "family" to include
    unmarried persons, will accelerate the trend towards lowering medical
    benefits for everyone, most particularly those members of "nuclear
    families".  Maybe that is why this issue is so inflammable.
    

According to the articles I read (Business Week, Globe, couple of others) Lotus
got the usual mix of reactions, with negatives pretty much in balance with 
positives.  Might have shifted in the week or so since, but I doubt that Lotus
is too disturbed - probably anticipated some flap over the policy anyway.

Whether they actually excluded heterosexuals living together was not obvious 
from the articles I read (though I may have missed it).  If so, could it be 
because heterosexuals have plenty of options to declare a formal relationship 
that will be recognized by the civil (if not religuous) authorities?  Indeed, 
I thought that in most states in the U.S. you could find yourself married will 
you or no, if the (heterosexual) relationship lasted long enough (ever heard 
the term Common Law Marriage?).  If gay and lesbian couples had the same options
for formally (or involuntarily) declaring a long-term relationship that 
heterosexuals do, then the alleged policy could be considered unfair.  As it is,
it looks pretty reasonable.  A heterosexual couple wishing to declare themselves
in a long-term relationship has a lot of options, this extends ONE option to
gay and lesbian couples (since the others aren't available in most places).

No big deal.

/Dave

    .44 is right in saying that DEC, amoung others, is fighting for
    survival and the likelihood of extending benefits in any way is remote.
    In fact, didn't we just see an "adjustment" in the medical plan options
    that equated to lowering benefits?
    
    .46 points out that extending benefits to unmarried couples (hetero or
    homosexual) will result in diminishing benefits for married couples. 
    This is true too and dovetails into .44 in that there is only so much
    benefit money to go around.  If someone gains, someone else looses.
    
    Part of me wants to impose some level of morality on the situation and
    say "fair benefit distribution to all employees" or maybe an opposing
    view "children are the future of our country and it's everyone's
    responsibility to provide for them".  How naive!  As I said in .34 (I
    think it was) corporate benefits philosophy will probably (slowly)
    migrate toward what's competitive.  We'll probably see it begin with
    Lotus if/when some sharp, hard working, productive homosexuals migrate
    over to Lotus based on the benefits package there.  Eventually, other
    corporations will be forced to adopt more liberal benefits packages to
    attract/keep employees.  
    
    What's fair?
    What's proper?
    What's traditional?
    
    Who cares.  I say that "What makes the corporation more money" is
    what'll win out in the end.
    
    Dave

.47> A heterosexual couple wishing to declare themselves in a long-term
.47> relationship has a lot of options...
                        |||

One option is the institution of marriage (although I doubt that many
people want to join an institution) ... what are the othere "options"
if there are "a lot" of options?

Bubba

| .40> Back in the beginning of this string someone mentioned that the couples
| .40> had to show proof that their assets were tied together. Is this true?

| And I wonder just what will suffice as "proof"?  Depends upon what state
| you live in as to just how "tied" the assets can be.  Legal implications
| here are/could_be horrendous if such "proof" is required.

	How could they be horrendous? Examples?

| .40> Jerry, what do you mean by this? Who needs to belly up? I would think
| .40> that if someone is in a committed relationship, that MOST of those couples
| .40> would take advantage of it IF the coverage they now have isn't as good
| .40> as the coverage DEC is offering. There is a big difference between going
| .40> to personell to get coverage and speaking in front of a room of people.

| Oh .. I just couldn't make all this "fit" together .. an "awareness day"
| that people wouldn't participate in (due to fear) so an outside person
| is brought in and then *signing* papers where benefits are involved and
| "MOST" couples would take advantage of ... it all just didn't fit ... then
| again, maybe "money speaks"?

	Someone going up to A person in personell is much different than
someone talking in a room with SEVERAL other people in it. With going to
personell, fewer people would know about it, fewer people have a chance of
acting negitively towards that person, the person could probably get through it
without a MAJOR label being stamped on their forhead. In a room with a lot of
people however, it could be a lot more labeling going on. Labeling done not
because of the person, but because of what they represent. Can you see the
difference?

| .41> In .14 you said that wrath has descended upon Lotus.

| I can't remember where I saw the documentation about the negative press
| on Lotus ... I'll go see if I can find it when I get time.

	Please find it. I would really like to see it.

| (I distinctly remember some comment to the effect that LOTUS was "rethinking" 
| the entire program).  

	Now I REALLY would like to see the report! :-)



Glen

    Quickly (speaking of profitability - gotta do some sellin' today).
    
    When I lived in the State of New Hampshire I was in Sales Training and
    traveled 90% of the time.  As such, I my housemate had a full and
    complete power of attorney for me.  He could (literally) have sold the
    house, taken the profits and had a ball and I couldn't do anything
    about it.
    
    This was not your run-of-the-mill power of attorney - he could do
    ANYTHING without my signature (more than any married couple could do).
    
    When I moved to California I took the same power of attorney to an
    attorney here and he said that such was not possible because we are not
    "blood relatives".
    
    Assets?  I own everything.
    
    Bubba

    An earlier reply here was of great interest to me personally. 
    As a single immigrant to the US, I have aged parents who divide
    their time between their home in another country, and with 
    each of their three kids in the US. They are partially 
    (but not totally) dependent on me. The situation is fairly 
    typical for many Asian immigrants with close-knit but widely 
    dispersed families. I haven't researched this thoroughly,
    but I believe I get zippo medical coverage for either of
    my parents when they're here with me, and I don't think
    I can get the usual tax-breaks for dependents either. 
    As some others have pointed out, if your "family structure" 
    doesn't conform to the usual "spouse plus 2.3 kids" or whatever, 
    the system isn't geared to help you.  
    
    I also disagree with those who point out that the company 
    isn't making money right now, so it's futile to discuss 
    who should get what. I'll change my mind on that when 
    I see just one married employee who's already eligible 
    for family benefits not claiming them out of some sense 
    of magnanimity towards the corporation.
    
    By the way, if someone else is in a similar position to mine,
    and has figured out ways to beat the system, please do 
    get in touch by mail.
    
    Ganesh.
                                                  

re .49:

>One option is the institution of marriage (although I doubt that many
>people want to join an institution) ... what are the othere "options"
>if there are "a lot" of options?

Three ways to enter into the "instution" of marriage (state recognized 
with religuous ceremony, civil ceremony, and common law), plus just telling it
to your employer, who probably won't check (I never presented proof of my
marriage).  Which beats out none by a long shot (although I admit to a smidge
of hyperbole in my choice of terms).

/Dave

    I'm sure health and life insurance can be bought for anyone without
    DEC having to subsidize the cost.  I mean if someone wants to add
    their parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, stepchildren,
    nephews, friends, enemies, strangers, etc...  to their health plan,
    then fine, buy insurance for them with your own money.  But don't expect 
    the rest of us to help subsidize all of that.
    
    It's clear that extending benefits to spouses and children is
    discriminating against single non-parents.  I know that part of the
    money the DEC makes on my work is going to buy some other employee's
    spouse's medication or one of his/her kid's braces.  The people closest
    to me in my life have to fend for themselves.
    
    Another thing...
    
    I know of MANY married couples that both work and have benefits
    packages from both places of work.  This applies to their children too.
    They're actually covered twice for things like health insurance.  What 
    a waste!  And the insurance companies are making out like bandits 
    because they can charge full rates while only having to realize half 
    the expense (on average).  It seems to me that it would be in the best 
    interest of everyone involved (save the insurance companies) to have 
    these individuals  covered once and each employer pay half the coverage.  
    I'm sure something could be worked out.
    
    What do you think?    
    
    Dave
    

re .19:

>Hmmm . . . do you know where your benefits are coming from?  DEC, as a large
>employer, gets a  big reduction in the premiums for different benefits like
>health insurance (or HMO membership), disability, and so on.

If by health insurance you mean the Digital Medical Plans, this is incorrect.
Digital is self insured.

re .54:

In the U.S., you can opt out of medical insurance if you're covered through
another plan.  This avoids at least some double coverage.

.53> Three ways to enter into the "instution" of marriage (state recognized 
.53> with religious ceremony, civil ceremony, and common law)...

    Avoiding the *issue*?

    Do you think that it's *fair* to tell heterosexual couples that they
    must get married to share in the benefits plan of a company?  No way.

    Common law don't cut it.  In Texas you're "married" after 7 years, but,
    move across the state line and you're single.

    My sister-in-law has been with the same person for *T W E N T Y* years
    but because they've crossed state boundaries ... they are .. they
    aren't .. they are .. they aren't ... etc...

    If we're going to re-define the family ... let's do it and NOT give
    preferential treatment to any minority.  It will do nothing more than
    accelerate an already rapidly growing polarization, and, for no good
    reason what-so-ever.
    
    I, personally, would be QUITE upset if Digital did the same as Lotus,
    and, would most assuredly voice my opposition, at the highest levels,
    to such a plan.

    Bubba

    PS - my earlier note today about having to sell ... well ... this guy
    wanted  to upgrade his uVAXII/RD54 system .. yep ... I "upgraded" him,
    ....to the tune of nearly $200K ...!!

    	I think it is high time DEC got out of the morality business.
    We've already seen what can potentially result when DEC policy is
    burdened by such complications (see note #1616 if you are new to
    this conference for an example - and that was only the tip of the
    iceberg since that note was write-locked to contain the meltdown).

    	As such, I agree with EDP (reply .4) and Lee G. (reply .24)
    in terms of initiating a "flexible benefit plan" where each employee
    gets X dollars to spend on the benefit plan of their choosing.  In
    such an arrangement, the personal lifestyles and family structures
    are no longer any of DEC's business - as it should be!  Not only
    that, but what better way to control rising health care costs than
    to redefine what health care means (i.e. a vacation to reduce stress
    could be viewed as a preventative health measure, yet try collecting
    money for such a vacation from the current Digital Medical Plan).

    				  -davo

re .56:

I think the *issue* is that we have different views on what constitutes an 
option in this case.  It may not be fair to require heterosexual couples to
get married to be able to share in a benefit.  My point was that there
are even LESS ways for gay or lesbian couples to get the benefits.  If a 
state allowed non-heterosexual marriage, I'd have a different opinion.

/Dave

While I agree that a flexible benefits plan is, on the whole, the best solution
to differing needs, such a plan does nothing to ease the restrictions on who
may be included under dependant coverage options.  Some sort of alteration
in this area is would be required to equitably address ALL the issues raised 
here.  As long as the plan limits dependant coverage to legal spouses and
children, many people with legitimate needs will be short-changed.

Requiring binding contracts from homosexual couples is, IMHO, a rather subtle
form of discrimination.  During my 21 years of marriage, my wife has always 
been carried on my group plan.  None of the seven companies I've worked for
has ever required ANY proof the we were legally married. If benefits are to be 
extended to non-married partners, it should be on similar terms.
 
-dave

    Nit on common-law marriage:
    
    I suspect that previous notes about common-law marriage are incorrect;
    it's my understanding that to become married by the common-law process
    three things must be true:
    
    1.	You and your "spouse" are initially unmarried and eligible to marry;
    
    2.	You live together for the minimum amount of time;
    
    3.	You live together as "man and wife", representing yourself as
    	married (for example, a woman might call herself "Mrs", you 
    	might make wills or contracts in which you refer to "husband"
    	and "wife", etc.).
    
    The last point is crucial--I believe that mere cohabitation is not
    sufficient in any state to establish a legal marriage.
    
    Further, if you are married in one state, you are married in another
    (the Constitution guarantees that with the phrase about "full faith
    and credit" given by each state to other states).
    
    Common-law is used in retrospect, not concurrently (i.e. nobody sends
    you a marriage certificate): for example, a woman might contend with
    a man's relatives over his estate, claiming to be his widow due to a
    a common-law marriage.  The relatives would claim that she was just
    a girl-friend.  If she could produce proof that she had lived with the
    man the requisite amount of time and she had things like driver's
    licenses and bank accounts in the name of "Mrs. X" or was listed in his
    employer's data file as the man's wife, etc. she'd probably win.
    
    But the above is just my opinion; if you are really dealing with this
    issue there's no substitute for a real legal expert's help.
    
    		-John Bishop

    re .59
    
    I think we differ in our understanding of what teh flexible benefits
    package means.  I believe that it states that an employee has 'x'
    amount of money to spend on benefits based, I believe it was stated
    earlier, on ones base salary.  If an employee has a spouse and 9 kids,
    then it probably means that most if not all of this employees benefits
    money will be spent on health insurance.  If the benefits dollar amount
    isn't enough to cover his/her whole family, then it starts coming out
    of his/her base salary.  Like I said before, there's only so much $$ to 
    go around and if you give to the unmarried employees, you take away
    from the married.  
    
    Myself, I don't have a problem helping out a fellow employee pay for
    his kid's braces but I also don't think it's fair that the one closest
    to me might go uninsured while employee 'X' in the next cube has a half
    dozen people covered.  It's just not fair.
    
    

Maybe I don't understand something here...

The traditional and primary purpose of the family unit is to raise *Children*.
Traditionaly, one of the parents is not working for the purpose of seeing to 
the care and training of said children.  Beings our collective success
or failure in this rather important endeavour determines our future success
as a *society*, we have traditionally considered it important to subsidize
those who perform this task.  

I do not and will never understand why I should be subsidizing the insurance
costs for otherwise able-bodied individuals just because they happen to 
sleeping with an employee of this company...

For those non-traditional family units responsible for dependent children, you 
are telling me you can't get insurance?  I would not agree with this then...

(I realize that this model does not fit all cases, especially these days, but
I am talking in general)

    The last note got me to thinking about a possible redefinition of the
    term family... 'a household with dependant children is a family unit'.
    People would fall under one of two groups; individual or family unit.
    
    Such a definition, broadly applied (ie not just insurance, but taxes,
    etc) would have some interesting ramifications. Hmmm.....
    
    No more significance to being married, homo/hetero, single parent, etc.
    If a household qualified, all its members would be treated as a unit; 
    otherwise everyone would be treated individually.
    
    Dave

re .62

>For those non-traditional family units responsible for dependent children, you 
>are telling me you can't get insurance?  I would not agree with this then...

Anybody can get insurance, if they have enough money.  But lots of people can't
afford health insurance without the group rates AND sizable subsidy that a large
company provides.

/Dave

    re .62:
>Beings our collective success
>or failure in this rather important endeavour determines our future success
>as a *society*, we have traditionally considered it important to subsidize
>those who perform this task.  

    If that's the key to obtaining _any_ non-single benefits from Digital,
    then I'm in trouble.  I've been married for 12 years, but have not
    chosen to undertake the "important endeavor".  Yet I'm paying for
    "family" medical coverage.  Are you suggesting that there be three
    categories: single, married without kids, and married with kids?
    Are you perhaps suggesting that the 'married without kids' category
    should pay more than 'married with kids', since they're less important
    to society?
    
    I have to disagree.  There are different ways of contributing to
    society.  I don't feel that I'm a parasite.
    
    (Even my in-laws have given up hinting that we should produce
    grandchildren for them.  Now, you folks are starting....? :-))
    
>I do not and will never understand why I should be subsidizing the insurance
>costs for otherwise able-bodied individuals just because they happen to 
>sleeping with an employee of this company...
    
    I don't think Digital is even considering asking you to do so. Even
    Lotus isn't covering couples who only "sleep with" each other, but
    couples who are willing to tie their assets together in a legal sense.
    In other words, couples who are in a long-term relationship, even if
    the state doesn't recognize it legally.
    
    Leaving kids out of it, do you support that?
    
    re .63:
>    The last note got me to thinking about a possible redefinition of the
>    term family... 'a household with dependant children is a family unit'.
>    People would fall under one of two groups; individual or family unit.
>    Such a definition, broadly applied (ie not just insurance, but taxes,
>    etc) would have some interesting ramifications. Hmmm.....
    
    Your definition leaves me in limbo.  I'm not in either group, and I
    don't intend to be.  I'm especially worried by the application to taxes
    -- 'Married filing jointly' would require at least one dependent,
    wouldn't it?  Mabel and I would both have to check off 'Single'.
    
    I hope you're proposing a salary increase for me, too, at the same
    time.:-)
    
    Bob
    

    re .62
    
>>The traditional and primary purpose of the family unit is to raise *Children*.
    
    But the traditional and primary purpose of a corporation is to make
    money for the stockholders.  As stated much earlier in this note,
    benefits are offered as an enticement, not a social service.  If social
    service is a corporate objective, then why not pump $$ into the heart
    of the problem, like in school systems or health/nutrition clinics of 
    lower class neighborhoods.  I'm sorry, but the need is far far greater
    there. Benefits extended to an employees dependents is viewed (from the 
    corporation's standpoint) as an expense to keep workers.
    
>> I do not and will never understand why I should be subsidizing the insurance
>> costs for otherwise able-bodied individuals just because they happen to 
>> sleeping with an employee of this company...
     
    In the interest of keeping the peace, I urge other single employees
    with loving relationships who read .64 to be constructive in their 
    response to the comment above.  All I'll say here is that a non-married 
    relationship can and most always does have more depth than just "happen 
    to sleep together".  It seems to me that participation in the social
    institution of marriage should not be a barrier to extending equal and
    fair compensation to all employees, and neither should compliance with
    social morays anout sexual orientation.  
    
    In these days of brief marriages ending up in divorce, would you feel
    more comfortable if people got married for the purpose of reaping
    corporate benefits from a prospective spouse, then, get divorced
    because they never really wanted to get married anyway?  Seems silly
    but I wouldn't doubt it if someone told me it happens.  I have more
    respect for the institution than that.
    
    Dave
    
    

        re: .65
        
        Aw, come on Bob! Aren't all of those bears "dependents"?
        
        :-)
        
        Bob

Isn't it possible for a married couple to have totally separate assets
and no financial responsibility for each other?  I believe the rules
vary from state to state, but surely there's someplace where a married
couple couldn't pass Lotus's test of financial ties.

    Don't forget that Digital offers different benefits packages, with
    *different costs*, for singles and families.  Single people (probably)
    are not subsidizing families.  (I don't know for sure because I don't
    know how the carrier sets its rates to cover its costs.  But then,
    that's their business.)
    
    But I do see this discussion turning down a dark alley that makes me
    uncomfortable, so I'll quote someone I heard the other day.  A society
    that can't afford to raise children is in mortal peril.

    I believe that the family unit, with a legally married husband and
    wife, with or without children, is the basic unit of society and the
    one from which society draws its underlying strength or weakness. So
    many forces at this time are viciously tearing away at the fabric of
    such families, including: extra-marital sexual relations, divorce,
    sexual perversions, including homosexuality, child abuse, drugs and
    self indulgence in many other forms.

    To build a strong marriage and family unit requires great sacrifice,
    commitment, and energy. So many of us these days are so bent on
    gratifying our own ego, vanity, or personal pleasures that all too
    often the norm is no longer a strong family, but rather a dysfunctional
    or 'broken' families. I believe that the price we are paying and will
    pay as a society for this situation is astronomical. We will pay a
    horrible price in disease, crime, taxes, broken hearts, loneliness, and
    sadness.

    I say, let us not promote, encourage or subsidize the forces that
    destroy families. Instead, let's do what we can to make our own
    families strong and stable. Let's remember that no other success can
    compensate for failure at home, and that the most important work we do
    will be within the walls of our own home. Let's choose to make the
    sacrifices and to practice the self discipline needed to have strong
    families.  Let's do what we can to encourage that behavior in others.
    If they choose not to do so, it is their choice, but I believe it will
    affect not only them, but the rest of us also.

    I am unalterably opposed to redefining the basic family unit in terms
    that go beyond legal marriage between husband and wife and their 
    dependent  children, because I believe that 'alternative family'
    arrangements do more to destroy the strength and stability of society
    and of the basic family unit. I am also as adamantly opposed to
    promoting 'alternative lifestyles' because they exert a destructive
    influence on society and on the true family unit.  By this, I mean both
    heterosexual liasons that are outside the bonds of legal marriage and
    all homosexual liasons. I am especially disappointed to see Digital
    involved in promoting alternative lifestyles. 

    I know this opinion may not be the current "politically correct"
    thinking, and that there are many who disagree with me. I acknowledge
    their right to do so, and I claim the right to believe as I do. I ask
    you to look deep in your heart and ask yourself if these things are not
    true. Don't you think that true and lasting happiness comes from strong
    families? I do. The peace and happiness of our society depends on it.

    re .65
>>    The last note got me to thinking about a possible redefinition of the
>>    term family... 'a household with dependant children is a family unit'.
>>    People would fall under one of two groups; individual or family unit.
>>    Such a definition, broadly applied (ie not just insurance, but taxes,
>>    etc) would have some interesting ramifications. Hmmm.....
>    
>    Your definition leaves me in limbo.  I'm not in either group, and I
>    don't intend to be.  I'm especially worried by the application to taxes
>    -- 'Married filing jointly' would require at least one dependent,
>    wouldn't it?  Mabel and I would both have to check off 'Single'.
    
    Filing 'Family' would require at least one dependant child. Otherwise
    each adult would file as 'Individual'. There would be no 'Single,
    Head-of-Household, Married filing joint, Married filing seperate'.
    There would only be two tax tables, etc, adjusted as appropriate.
    
    Note: This is a thought experiment, not something I'm necessarily
    advocating. But rather than attempting to create more and more
    classifications based upon increasingly varied situations, maybe it
    really is time to rethink the fundamental definitions.
    
    re: .-1
    
    In many respects I agree with you. However there also comes a time when
    institutions must align with reality, rather than a hoped for "ideal".
    
    Dave

    Re .62
    
    Like many others, I don't agree with your narrow definition of the 
    "primary purpose" of a family. More importantly, I don't want
    to see Digital, and other employers, tying themselves up in knots
    trying to appear that they're "doing good things for society".
    As someone mentioned in another reply, we ought to focus on 
    why benefits exist - they're a pure expense, and they exist 
    to attract capable employees. 
    
    I like the idea of completely flexible benefits. Whether I want 
    to raise children, take care of my folks as they grow older, 
    or even take in a homeless drunk off the streets and make 
    a productive human being of him, is entirely my business 
    - and when you think about it, every one of these choices 
    has value to society.
    
    Ganesh.                               

re: .70,

    	I see that the tactics of those who would impose their own
    religious and/or moralistic attitudes on others whose "alternative 
    life styles" differ from their own are beginning to follow a very
    familiar pattern in this notesfile: label anyone who does not
    conform to the desired norm as being "politically correct", and
    proceed to spread viscious lies and falsehoods about how these
    alternative lifestyles "exert a destructive influence on society".

    	I would argue that if anyone is being "politically correct",
    that it is the people of the "norm" whose xenophobic attitudes
    define what is and is not acceptable in terms of a family unit.
    These are truly the people who reep the most hatred, violence,
    and unhappiness, and these are the people who ultimately "exert
    a destructive influence on society".

    	Assuming the notion about families and happiness to be true, then
    why is it that people of alternative lifestyles are summarily denied 
    the ability to enjoy such happiness since they are not allowed to
    marry one another and/or create their own family structures?  Why
    are people of the "norm" intent upon casting spells of torment upon
    those whose family structures differ from their own?  Is conformity
    so important to the xenophobes that they are willing to deny people
    the very means of acheiving happiness unless and until they conform
    to some arbitrary norm?

    				   -davo

p.s.	I reiterate: it is time for DEC to get out of the morality business!

re .73:

>p.s.	I reiterate: it is time for DEC to get out of the morality business!

That doesn't seem possible.  Whether DEC adopts the Lotus position or not,
certain segments of the population (including our customers) will regard
that decision as DEC taking a moral position.

    re .69
    

>>    Don't forget that Digital offers different benefits packages, with
>>    *different costs*, for singles and families.  Single people (probably)
>>    are not subsidizing families.  (I don't know for sure because I don't
>>    know how the carrier sets its rates to cover its costs.  But then,
>>    that's their business.)

I beg to differ...

It it's costing Digital anyting to subsidize families, then it's costing
all Digital employees because it's tapping from the monetary resources that 
we ALL contribute to in the way of profit.  In other words, if the $$
weren't going to subsidize these extended benefits, it would go elsewhere.



>>    But I do see this discussion turning down a dark alley that makes me
>>    uncomfortable, so I'll quote someone I heard the other day.  A society
>>    that can't afford to raise children is in mortal peril.

And I beg to state that we are ALL contributing to raising our children.  I
don't know about you, but a substantial chunk of my paycheck goes off to
state and federal taxes and a big chunk of that goes to things like
education, subsidized school meals, health services in the schools, welfare 
to hold struggling families together, and (from the standpoint of someone 
who claims 1 dependent) the tax burden is disproportionately greater.  And
yes, I realize that it's a financial burden to raise children, but that was
the choice of the parents (in most cases) and these parents usually claim
the sole right to raise the children as they choose.  I think that it's a
pretty magnanimous gesture on the part on non-parents to be contributing so
much and then stand back and let the parents do as they will.  I don't want
to neglect to mention the sacrifices in time, money and effort some single
and/or homosexuals make in the participation in charity work in communities
across the country.

re .70

I agree that the family is a core component to a strong society but I do
not agree with the outrageous claims that follow.  There are countless
examples of individuals who fit into the catagories you denounced in your 
reply that have made wonderful and valuable contributions to our society
AND some of those to the strength of family unit. 

 
>>    To build a strong marriage and family unit requires great sacrifice,
>>    commitment, and energy. So many of us these days are so bent on
>>    gratifying our own ego, vanity, or personal pleasures that all too
>>    often the norm is no longer a strong family, but rather a dysfunctional
>>    or 'broken' families. I believe that the price we are paying and will
>>    pay as a society for this situation is astronomical. We will pay a
>>    horrible price in disease, crime, taxes, broken hearts, loneliness, and
>>    sadness.

The sacrifices are voluntary.  Don't drag that cross around claiming that
others placed it on your back.  And it may be inaccurate to assume that all
human endevours outside or child rearing inside the traditional family unit
are perverted, destructive practices by self centerd people.  Sometimes
that's true, but generally not.  I do agree that a strong family unit can
provide children with what they need to become strong adults and valued
members of the society.  I do not agree that the family unit is the ONLY
means to achieve that end.

>>    I say, let us not promote, encourage or subsidize the forces that
>>    destroy families. Instead, let's do what we can to make our own
>>    families strong and stable. Let's remember that no other success can
>>    compensate for failure at home, and that the most important work we do
>>    will be within the walls of our own home. Let's choose to make the
>>    sacrifices and to practice the self discipline needed to have strong
>>    families.  Let's do what we can to encourage that behavior in others.
>>    If they choose not to do so, it is their choice, but I believe it will
>>    affect not only them, but the rest of us also.

You may be going a little overboard here.  I think the base note was
soliciting general responses to the idea that benefits might be extended 
more equitably to the population of a companies employees.  I mean it's not
like were out to "destroy the family unit".  we might be interested in
helping out loved ones with benefits provided by our employer.  Speaking of
helping the family unit, what would you say if an employee had a sibling
who was out of work and that employee wanted to cover his sibling, the
sibling's spouce and their children. Would that not be aiding the family
unit?

>>    I am also as adamantly opposed to
>>    promoting 'alternative lifestyles' because they exert a destructive
>>    influence on society ...

Wow!
I seem to remember reading about this type of thinking back when I was in
school studying history.  I also seem to recall the founders of our great
nation fostering the notion of protecting the practice of "alternate
lifestyles" and personal freedoms.  IN fact, I seem to remember reading
about millions of Americans sacrificing their very lives for this very
cause.  I'll stop there.

>>    I know this opinion may not be the current "politically correct"
>>    thinking, and that there are many who disagree with me. I acknowledge
>>    their right to do so, and I claim the right to believe as I do. I ask
>>    you to look deep in your heart and ask yourself if these things are not
>>    true. Don't you think that true and lasting happiness comes from strong
>>    families? I do. The peace and happiness of our society depends on it.

And I respect your opinion and your right to it.  Clearly we differ in the
way we percieve this issue but I do not see that as being a barrier to
continuing a constructive dialogue.

Dave
  

    Anent .75: Dave, you seem to be arguing both sides of the issue, so
    please excuse my if I'm confused by your statements.  Are you saying
    that Digital should not offer family benefits above the levels of
    single benefits becausde it eats into the profits?
    
    If the idea of my raising children in part using benefits money that
    could otherwise be spent on you, maybe it would help if you thought of
    my children as future customers 8^)

>> ...maybe it would help if you thought of my children as future customers 8^)

good point!

Paying for benefits is like paying salaries is like paying the light
bill... they're all expenses incurred in the process of making money.  From
a purely capitalistic standpoint, if it doesn't contribute to making
profit, it's not worth spending. I hope that the policy makers are a little
more open minded than that, but the financial ascpect is probably the main
driver in their decisions... it has to be! 

I've got no problem with the idea of helping kids get health insurance,
really, I love kids, all kids even if they're not going to be future
DEC customers.  But it may not be in DEC's best interest to keep a narrow
view on this, especially if it finds some of it's valued employees or
potential employees moving off to other firms due in part to the fact that
these other firms might offer a benefits package that better accomodates
their lifestyle.  There's only so much $$ to go towards benefits (if you 
know what I mean)                                         

If the objective is to help the family unit in general, then address the
problem... in general... for DEC employees as well as non-DEC employees.
And there are DEC spponsored programs that do just that.  But I do ask
that the distinction be made between extending a benefits package as an
enticement and contributions to family support in general as an charitable
investment in future society(s). 

I knew of an employee who was a single parent and really needed the health
coverage for her child.  Believe me, I had no problem with the idea that
some portion of those benefits were payed for by other employees... me
amoung them.  I also know of other employees who have double coverage of
all their kids because both parents work and that some portion of those
benefits were payed for by others.  That pill didn't go down as well. 
Finally, there's someone close to me that I'm not married to but may, in
the future, be in the position of needing health insurance.  I'm not
talking about a spouse and five kids for the duration of my employment, 
just one other who may have a legitimate need for a short term until she
can find work.  It would be nice if it came back my way for a change in that
situation, ya know? 

Lotus is perhaps the icebreaker.  I can't help but think that the
executives which adopted this plan were targetting valuable workers 
who happened to be gay both inside and outside teh company.  It may pay off
or not (if married employees start to leave).  Anyway, the die is cast.


Dave

    re .70  Kotterri

>    I know this opinion may not be the current "politically correct"
>    thinking, and that there are many who disagree with me. I acknowledge
>    their right to do so, and I claim the right to believe as I do. 

    Oh dear, another one on the "PC" claptrap bandwagon.  You have every 
    right to believe whatever you want; nobody said you didn't.  It's your
    pontificating and I-know-what's-best-for-you attitude (which comprise
    the bulk of your note) that prompted me to reply here.

>    I ask
>    you to look deep in your heart and ask yourself if these things are not
>    true. Don't you think that true and lasting happiness comes from strong
>    families? I do. The peace and happiness of our society depends on it.

    No, I don't.  True happiness comes from within yourself, not from any
    external factors, including the number of parents/siblings/children
    one possesses.  If that's the source of your peace and happiness, fine.
    But it's not everyone's.

    re .67 (bears)
    Bob, I thought about mentioning that I'm actually married-with-teddy-bears,
    but I decided that was too similar to the hairball rathole earlier in
    this topic. :-)

    "PC" is a canard: nothing more than a red herring. It is thrown up to
    obfuscate the otherwise obvious point that most folks using the term
    are merely caught in the act of going glandular at the thought that
    someone, somewhere might be aspiring to the benefits of full membership
    in society.
    
    re: families = nuclear/with children.
    
    A substantial number of families -- of the recognized kind and the
    others-- represented by the Digital population probably see the care of
    aging parents to be an equally powerful reason for families to exist.
    Society has a need to care for people at both ends of the age
    spectrum, and isn't doing a very good job at either.
    
    John H.

    re .70:
    >I believe that the family unit, with a legally married husband and
    >wife, with or without children, is the basic unit of society and the
    >one from which society draws its underlying strength or weakness. So
    >many forces at this time are viciously tearing away at the fabric of
    >such families, including: extra-marital sexual relations, divorce,
    >sexual perversions, including homosexuality, child abuse, drugs and
    >self indulgence in many other forms.
    
    I don't believe that there's anything inherently stronger or more
    worthwhile about the relationship of a couple who are of opposite sexes
    and are legally married, as opposed to other long-term, committed
    relationships.  Some relationships are indeed destructive, but they
    don't fall neatly into the categories you've named -- at least, not in
    my experience.
    
    >I ask
    >you to look deep in your heart and ask yourself if these things are not
    >true. Don't you think that true and lasting happiness comes from strong
    >families?
    
    Yes, I do!  But again, I don't think these strong families are limited
    to 'a legally married husband and wife, with or without children'.
    
    Bob

re: .74,

>>p.s.	I reiterate: it is time for DEC to get out of the morality business!

>That doesn't seem possible.  Whether DEC adopts the Lotus position or not,
>certain segments of the population (including our customers) will regard
>that decision as DEC taking a moral position.

    	I never advocated DEC adopting the Lotus position per se, as while
    the Lotus benefits program seems progrssive at first, it is ultimately
    only yet another example of a company dabbling in the morality business.
    This is why I think the idea of "flexible benefits" (first mentioned in
    replies #.4 and #.24) sounds like a potentially more equitable solution.

	Depending upon how such a "flexible benefits" plan were adopted,
    it would ideally leave it up to the individual employee to decide how
    to spend their benefit money.  By providing each employee a benefit
    amount based upon their salary (or possibly even an equal amount for
    everyone), then each employee would be empowered with all of the
    associated moral decisions such as who to cover, what sort of lifestyle
    they wish to live, etc., and DEC would no longer be in the morality
    business.

    	The existing DEC benefits program imposes a given moral code
    on DEC employees by supporting the existence of a specific hetrosexual
    "nuclear" family structure alone, while not supporting other alternative
    lifestyles and/or family structures.  The existing DEC benefits program
    is therefore discriminatory and should be replaced by a flexible benefits
    program which would be fair to all employees.

				    -davo

/WKRP::LENNIG "Dave (N8JCX), MIG, Cincinnati"         12 lines   1-NOV-1991 08:05
/    The last note got me to thinking about a possible redefinition of the
/    term family... 'a household with dependant children is a family unit'.
/    People would fall under one of two groups; individual or family unit.

Without messing with the definition of family, I think that anyone with legal 
dependents ought to be able to insure those dependents on the company policy.
If you are responsible for someone who needs care, it is not to the companies
benefit to have you financially ruined...

/TPSYS::BUTCHART "TP Systems Performance"             10 lines   1-NOV-1991 08:09
/re .62
/>For those non-traditional family units responsible for dependent children, you 
/>are telling me you can't get insurance?  I would not agree with this then...
/
/Anybody can get insurance, if they have enough money.  But lots of people can't
/afford health insurance without the group rates AND sizable subsidy that a large
/company provides.

Back to dependents...  All my dependents (wife/kids) are on my insurance... 
Are you saying my marriage allows this?  Or the fact that they are dependent?

/BUBBLY::LEIGH "Gone flat"                            50 lines   1-NOV-1991 08:49
/    re .62:
/    I have to disagree.  There are different ways of contributing to
/    society.  I don't feel that I'm a parasite.
   
I never said that... 
 
/    I don't think Digital is even considering asking you to do so. Even
/    Lotus isn't covering couples who only "sleep with" each other, but
/    couples who are willing to tie their assets together in a legal sense.
/    In other words, couples who are in a long-term relationship, even if
/    the state doesn't recognize it legally.
/    
/    Leaving kids out of it, do you support that?
 
I suppose, though I am hard pressed to understand why anyone would "tie their
assets" together unless they expected to be responsible for a family...

/CNTROL::DGAUTHIER                                    36 lines   1-NOV-1991 09:10
/    re .62
/    But the traditional and primary purpose of a corporation is to make
/    money for the stockholders.  As stated much earlier in this note,
/    benefits are offered as an enticement, not a social service.  If social
/    service is a corporate objective, then why not pump $$ into the heart
/    of the problem, like in school systems or health/nutrition clinics of 
/    lower class neighborhoods.  I'm sorry, but the need is far far greater
/    there. Benefits extended to an employees dependents is viewed (from the 
/    corporation's standpoint) as an expense to keep workers.

More money for education and health clinics are attacking symptoms, not the 
problem.  The problem is dysfunctional families...  Kids from strong families 
do well in school (as a rule) and the problem children generally have 
difficulties that can be traced back to home
    
/>> I do not and will never understand why I should be subsidizing the insurance
/>> costs for otherwise able-bodied individuals just because they happen to 
/>> sleeping with an employee of this company...
/     
/    In the interest of keeping the peace, I urge other single employees
/    with loving relationships who read .64 to be constructive in their 
/    response to the comment above.  

Upon re-reading that, it was a bit stronger than intended.  I did not mean
to demean anyone's particular personal situation...

/CNTROL::DGAUTHIER                                    48 lines   1-NOV-1991 15:35
/I've got no problem with the idea of helping kids get health insurance,
/really, I love kids, all kids even if they're not going to be future
/DEC customers.  

I think the real issue is this:  Does the emplyee have legal responsibility or
the person with the company subsidized insurance?  If so, it is in the 
companies interest to pay...  I do not think this has anything to do with 
"social" agendas.

    RE: <<< Note 1649.83 by HERCUL::MOSER "So what's a few BUPs between friends?" >>>

    >Without messing with the definition of family, I think that anyone with 
    >legal dependents ought to be able to insure those dependents on the 
    >company policy.  If you are responsible for someone who needs care, it 
    >is not to the company's benefit to have you financially ruined...   ^^ 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
    
         By that logic, Digital would be covering your gambling debts, too.
    
                                         Greg

.84> ...Digital would be covering your gambling debts, too.
    
    Wow!  Now *there* is a plan that I could vote for!!!
    
    Bubba

>             <<< Note 1649.84 by IMTDEV::BRUNO "Father Gregory" >>>
>

>         By that logic, Digital would be covering your gambling debts, too.

I've never thought about raising a family as akin to gambling...  Maybe it is 

:-(

.73> I reiterate: it is time for DEC to get out of the morality business!

    Sir.

    I've been reading your notes in 981 (Valuing Differences rathole) and
    you, personally, appear to be somewhat in favor of the Valuing
    Differences program.  How do you reconcile that support versus "getting
    out of the morality business" in this topic?

    OK, we get out of the morality business, and, VoD should be the first
    ones out the door?

    Anxiously awaiting your reply.

    General Bubba

    RE: .87  Jerry Beeler
    
    > How do you reconcile that support [for VoD] versus "getting out of 
    > the morality business" in this topic?
    
    What inconsistency needs to be reconciled?  Changing the definition
    of the family wrt medical benefits is very much in agreement with the 
    idea of Valuing Diversity.
    

    Seems to me that the definition of the "family" depends entirely on
    your perspective.  There are at least two perspectives involved.  One is
    that of the Corporation.  Another is that of the individual.  It may be
    inappropriate to try to force the same definition to both perspectives
    because as the perspectives change, so may the arguments.
    
    From the perspective of the Corporation, the "family" probably has to
    be defined in whatever terms will help it to maintain a productive
    workforce.  The way it administers insurance programs needs to enhance
    that productivity.  So, it needs to be sensitive to the status quo or
    its efforts will lead to reductions in productivity.  Personally, I
    don't really care how the Corporation decides to do this so long as it
    matches the needs of my "family".
    
    From my own personal perspective, I have an entirely different view.
    My family is the reason that I work for Digital.  If Digital won't
    provide me with that support, I'll leave and work for someone else.
    My own definition of a "family" is my own moral decision.  Digital has
    no place in deciding for me what is and is not morally correct or
    politically correct, if such a thing exists.
    
    The real problem is when someone makes their arguments to support one
    perspective, which I can accept, and then flips perspective they
    cannot expect that the same arguments will always apply.  I want to 
    think thoughts about politics that are correct.  I want to defend freedom 
    of choice.  I want to be happy.  I'm not afraid of homosexuals.  But, that 
    doesn't mean I want to be "politically correct", "pro-choice", "gay" or
    that I think that being called "homophobic" means I fear homosexuals.  
    These labels irritate me mostly because taken at face value they represent 
    perspectives whose arguments I have accepted.  But, then I find that they 
    are not really from those perspectives and that I may unwittingly apply 
    the same arguments to support them.  I feel this is no accident but is
    by design.  So, I feel like someone is trying to trick me into accepting 
    something I wouldn't accept if I thought about it.
    
    Similarly, broadly defining the "family" for the Corporation in
    order tomake a more productive workforce is just fine.  I can support
    that.  But, I won't support taking that definition and using it to try to
    manipulate my own definition of a "family".  I don't expect those in
    non-traditional families to have to bend to the Corporate definition,
    either.  
    
    Steve

>    What inconsistency needs to be reconciled?  Changing the definition
>    of the family wrt medical benefits is very much in agreement with the 
>    idea of Valuing Diversity.

    There is no inconsistency between redefining the family and VoD. Jerry
    didn't say there was. He implied that VoD was Digital being in "the
    morality business." Thus there is an inconsistency between supporting
    VoD and wanting Digital "out of the morality business."

    			Alfred

    Very good Alfred.  VoD *is* in the morality business.  Yet DMCLURE
    wants Digital to get *out* of the morality business with respect to
    deciding who does and who does not get benefits.  I contend that there
    is a conflict of values here.

    If we drop VoD and allow the non-traditional-family benefits ... we're
    out of the morality business.  If we maintain VoD (in the morality
    business) and allow non-traditional-family benefits (not in the
    morality business) we're still in the morality business.  Es verdad?

    Bubba

    RE: .91  Jerry Beeler
    
    It's your opinion that VoD :== Morality_business, in other words.
    
    I see VoD being a move OUT of the morality business in the same
    sense that redefining the family does this.  It's a move away
    from finding it acceptable to discriminate against an entire group
    based on the majority's perceptions about the morality of the
    group's so-called "lifestyle."
    
    Being in the morality business was the status quo.
    

VoD is not in the morality business as long as all differences are being 
valued.  It is the contention of some in this conference that this is not the
case.  If that is true, then either 1) VoD is unaware of the vast number of 
differences which need to be valued, or 2) VoD has made decisions regarding 
which differences are to be valued.

If the former is true, then VoD may be (unknowingly) giving the impression 
that the latter is true.  If the latter is true, then apparently VoD is 
judging which differences to value, hence, morality.

    RE: .93
    
    > VoD is not in the morality business as long as all differences are 
    > being valued. 
    
    ALL differences on the whole planet?  Among over 4 billion human
    inhabitants, there could be an almost infinite number of differences.
    
    > It is the contention of some in this conference that this is not the
    > case.  If that is true, then either 1) VoD is unaware of the vast number 
    > of differences which need to be valued,
    
    If your test of "morality" is based on whether or not VoD would agree
    to devote specific time to each of these potentially infinite number
    of differences on the planet, I'd call that a serious stacking of the
    deck against VoD.
    
    > or 2) VoD has made decisions regarding which differences are to be valued.
    
    Digital Equipment Corporation is a business - an employer of human beings.
    VoD is designed to help create a work environment free of the sort of
    harassment that is based on WHO WE ARE rather than the work each of us
    does.  
    
    It isn't a matter of being in the morality business - it's a matter of 
    good BUSINESS, period, for VoD to concentrate on the *obstacles* to 
    harassment-free work environments for ALL OF US.

re: .87,

>    I've been reading your notes in 981 (Valuing Differences rathole) and
>    you, personally, appear to be somewhat in favor of the Valuing
>    Differences program.  How do you reconcile that support versus "getting
>    out of the morality business" in this topic?

	See note #981.75 for my reply to your VoD-related questions.

    				   -davo

    Article in the Atlanta Journal/Constitution on Sunday, November 3,
    1991.  Reprinted without permission; typos are mine...
    
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                   CITY WORKERS' PARTNERS MAY GET PERKS
          Law would extend benefits to gay and straight live-ins
                      by Holly Morris, Staff Writer
    
    	Atlanta City Councilwoman Mary Davis plans to introduce an
    ordinance Monday that would provide health insurance and other benefits
    to city employees' unmarried partners, both gay and straight.
    
    	The ordinance would allow city employees and their line-in partners
    to formally declare they are domestic partners, have a committed
    relationship, are not married to anyone else and are jointly
    responsible for basic living expenses like food and shelter.
    
    	Mrs. Davis is expected to introduce the so-called domestic
    partnership bill at Monday's City Council meeting.
    
    	"My aim is equitable treatment of all city employees," she said
    Saturday.
    
    	Mayor Maynard Jackson has not had time to review the ordinance, but
    he knows that Mrs. Davis is planning to introduce it, said Marcia
    Okula, the mayor's special assistant for human rights and City Hall's
    liaison to the gay and lesbian community.
    
    	The Davis ordinance, similar to ones passed in eight other U.S.
    cities, was endorsed Saturday by the city's 18-member Study Committee
    on Domestic Partnership.  Mayor Jackson had his staff set up the
    committee, in keeping with a campaign promise he made to the city's gay
    community to study the feasibility of such legislation.
    
    	Ms. Okula, who organized the study committee, called the Davis
    ordinance "not what we would ultimately like to have, but it's a first
    step and we're very glad that she's doing this."
    
    	Ms. Okula predicted that the domestic partnership bill would not
    substantially increase the cost of health insurance for city employees
    paid for by taxpayers.
    
    "The city and its insurance companies do assume that a certain number
    of city employees will get married and have dependent children during
    the course of their emloyment, so that expectation is figured into the
    cost of the insurance," Ms. Okula said.
    
    	She said she didn't know how many city employees and their
    unmarried partners might take advantage of the ordinance if it passes.
    
    	She predicted that the insurance incentive will not be strong
    enough to overcome many employees' reluctance to identify themselves as
    gay or lesbian.
    
    	Even if the Davis ordinance is approved, the study committee will
    look into the possibility of passing a citywide domestic partnership
    ordinance that applies to all city residents, not just employees, Ms.
    Okula said.
    
    	Such an ordinance is likely to have more of a phychological effect
    than a legal and financial impact.  But it could affect insurance
    benefits if private insurers ever extend benefits to domestic partners.
    
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~END OF ARTICLE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``

    re .70
    
    >I believe that the family unit, with a legally married husband and
    >wife, with or without children, is the basic unit of society and the
    >one from which society draws its underlying strength or weakness.
    
    Change "is the basic unit" to "has been one of the basic units", and
    you'll be more accurate.
    
    While singles do not procreate, they still are culture bearers, and as
    such influence the future not through genes, but through behavioral
    patterns.
    
    Population growth in a closed environment is detrimental, not helpful
    to the continuity of civilization.  So, one could speculate that
    singles might indeed replace families as the primary basic unit at some
    point in the future of the human race.  Whether either of us would like
    this scenario is a separate issue.
    
    Dick
    

    Re: 97
    
      If we undermine the family unit (adults raising children) to any
      substantial degree, there won't be an overpopulation problem, or
      indeed, any population at all.  Where do you suppose most single
      people come from?  Where do you suppose most corporate employees 
      come from? 
    
      Can corporations exist without people?  Can stable, capable people
      be raised in large numbers outside a "family unit"?  The answer to
      the latter quesion is clearly "No!".  Literally thousands of failed
      utopian social experiments have proven the point.
    
      Corporate support for "redefining the family", to the extent that it
      reduces benefits to those raising children today, will have dramatic
      and unfavorable consequences today and tomorrow, and forever. 
    
      A discussion of "fairness" merely hides the underlying issues.
    

    The Shaker religion does not accept children.  Instead, it requires
    that adults voluntarily declare themselves as believers.  There are
    about two Shakers left...
    
    Countries that have achieved high standards of living have sharply
    reduced birth rates.  In (West) Germany, for example, the population
    would be declining if the borders were sealed.  For these countries,
    only immigration provides population growth.  I'm not saying this is
    bad; in fact, from a global perspective, I hope every country on earth
    begins to work this way today.  But referring to a comment entered this
    morning about single people being carriers of culture and thus
    important to society, I'd have to point out that the culture they're
    carrying in may not be the culture you're thinking of.  Again, I'm not
    saying this is bad; it's just different.
    
    In the past, I've seen arguments that companies prefer family-oriented
    employees over single employees, but I can't recall any specifics.  I
    toss that out as a point of discussion.  What do you think?

RE: .99

>In the past, I've seen arguments that companies prefer family-oriented
>employees over single employees, but I can't recall any specifics.  I
>toss that out as a point of discussion.  What do you think?

There is a very good reason why this statement is true.  In general, single
employees are more able to "leave" the company than family-oriented employees.
By "leave", I mean that they have less responsibilities that require an
income stream so they can tell the company that they will not do what the
company wants, i.e. the company has less control of them.  As a single person
in 1974, I could be laid off and not worry.  As a family-oriented person now,
I would have many more concerns.

Now the way this is generally put is that singles are not as stable as
family-oriented folks.  But that is a cop-out.  One of the biggest reasons
that people can change careers in middle age is that they have no kids left
at home and are financially well-off.  They would be considered very stable.
What they become is more independent and can do what they want.

IMHO,
Lee G.

    I think this question stands unanswered so far, so in case someone cares...
    
    Yes, you may be required to provide proof of marriage. My spouse and I
    have different last names, and for that reason Matthew Thornton
    required me to provide proof of marriage when I had him added to my
    family coverage.
    
    					Val
    

    re raising stable adults
    
    The kibbutzim did pretty well at raising adults in a non-family
    way; the failure of most utopian movements usually lay in other
    areas than the non-family method they chose to raise children in
    (in particular, most failed to solve the problem of motivating
    people to produce food to eat).
    
    I recommend you read anthropological textbooks before you claim
    that "husband-wife-kids" is the _only_ way to do things.  Some
    successful cultures bring up all non-infants in "dorm"- or 
    "barracks"-style living arrangements, as well as in less formal
    but more communal ones.
    
    That reading would also help clarify homosexuality as well.
    
    For a quick read, I suggest Marvin Harris' _Our_Kind_, but more
    scholarly books would give more examples (e.g. my old textbook
    _New_Perspectives_on_Cultural_Anthropology_, by now no longer
    so new).
    
    		-John Bishop

    re: proof of marriage
    
    My wife started a new job 2 weeks ago.  In her offer letter, she was
    told to bring her social security card, green card (she's not a U.S.
    citizen), our daughter's birth certificate, and marriage license.  We
    could understand the first 3, but not the fourth and our marriage
    license was in bank safe deposit box, so she went without it.  She
    wasn't allowed to cover me for health insurance until she brought in
    our marriage license.  She was told that this was required by the
    company's insurance carrier (Aetna).  BTW, we both have the same last
    name.
    
    Bob
    
                           

    I'd like to add Daisy to my insurance .. I wonder if John Hancock would
    notice the "DVM" after the attending physician's name?  We have the
    last name!
    
    Bubba

    Bubba, Dick Lennard beat you to it.  See replies .12, .18, .23.
    
    Perhaps you caught Dick's alleged hairball?
    I know, I know, it's a Notes-transmitted Disease. ;-)

    this is the first time i have written in this notesfile.  let me
    introduce myself.
    
    sue santschi, from landover maryland.  i am a lesbian with a spouse,
    diane and a daughter (my physical daughter) adrienne.
    
    i just received the *happy* news yesterday that certain parts of the
    washington dc area are now a digital medical plan healthnet area.  my
    family plan premiums, which are now $20.50 per week are now going to
    increase to $59.00 per week.  a 200% increase.
    
    since i already have the family plan, i think it's only fair that i add
    diane to my plan.  if i have to pay $40.00 more dollars a week for only
    2 people, i should be able to add one more person.
    
    to get my money's worth, maybe i should just have 2 more children and
    add all those childbirth expenses to the patient load of the digital
    medical plan system.
    
    am i burned at this news?  you betcha!
    
    btw, digital has the power to define "family".  let them set some
    definitions about what consititues a family.  
    
    what about the people who will have parents come live with them as the
    parents age?  will they be allowed to have them covered?  i say yes.
    
    as we change the way our families are constructed, various options
    should be available.
    
    if diane and i could be legally married, you can bet that we'd do it
    today.  we are just as much married as any heterosexual couple.  also,
    we can, through legal paperwork, have almost the same other legal
    benefits that legally married heterosexual couples can have.  you just
    have to know how to go about the paperwork.
    
    we can pass on our property, be each others "next of kin", mingle
    finances, at some enlightened companies get health insurance etc.
    
    one thought outside of this topic, how can digital call itself a group
    policy if they are charging open market rates ($3120.00 per year
    premimums)?
    
    i fully expect to get slammed in here, particularly after reading
    1616.*, i didn't read all of this string, but the responses i read were
    less than understanding of the human condition.
    
    my present family is much more loving than the heterosexual
    relationship i was in.  it is natural for me, just as hetersexuality is
    natural for others.  i tried to live a *normal* lifestyle, but it
    always felt strange, unnatural.  just as living a gay lifestyle would
    be unnatural for heterosexuals.
    
    but people have said this before, and probably will again.
    
    why can't people just let others live their lives in happiness and
    peace?  i do.
    
    sue

    re .106
    
    Well said!

As is discussed in the "Sky High" note, $59/week for family coverage is
much less than market rates.  I don't think there's anything to prevent
you from getting Blue Cross and opting out (except you'll find it costs
considerably more for similar coverage).  BTW, if DEC loosens its
definition of family, rates will rise even faster.

>BTW, if DEC loosens its
>definition of family, rates will rise even faster.
    
    Gerald, is that your op[inion, or can you back it up with some
    evidence?  I don't consider it obvious at all.  If a greater part of
    the "family pool" consists of adults rather than young children, the
    opposite may even occur.
    
    Bob

    there is a company in dc that will insure all kinds of families.  i may
    just look into their policies.
    
    i don't know how rates will rise faster.  i've seen many increases in
    just the 7 years i've been at dec.
    
    also, if one assumes that gays will increase the payouts, i'd like to
    point out that lesbians have the smallest incidence of any kind of
    sexually transmitted diseases of any adult demographic group.  there is
    probably less payout for childbirth care too.  that goes for the gay
    male population too.
    
    let me put this in a more personal light:
    
    suppose your mother came to live with you, she only has a small social
    security annunity, medicare (which is making choices on what diseases
    to treat to curb expense).  you would like to have her covered under
    your insurance policy because she is now your dependent.  current
    policy says no.  so in order to provide proper medical care for your
    mother (who you love very much), you have to go into debt, rather than
    have the option of putting your mother on your policy.
    
    i'm talking about human values.  your loved ones and how you want
    protection for them too.
    
    and like i said, if we could get married, we would.  just like the rest
    of you.  
    
    sue

If the employee currently has family coverage (as Sue apparently does),
adding dependents without increasing the employee contribution has got
to cost the company money (unless the added dependents never make a claim).
DEC has shown that they will pass this cost on to employees.

    My wife and I took in foster children for a long time.  One was long
    term, and we ended up adopting her.  I could not get medical coverage
    for her through DEC until she was adopted, which took seven years.
    
    My nephew lived with us for a year because my sister was in a situation
    where it was in my nephew's best interests to be with us.  We had to
    pay a fortune to get coverage for him because DEC wouldn't let us cover
    him.
    
    I am not against providing insurance coverage for any type of bonifide
    family unit.  I wonder how this could be accomplished without opening
    the door to all kinds of abuse.
    
    I do take issue with the fact that the employee and spouse (or spousal
    equivalent potentially) are forced to pay the same as a family with a
    large number of dependents.  I would like to see a set of fairer
    charges that wouldn't put too much burden on the larger family.
    
    
    
    

re .112:

I thought foster children are covered under Medicaid.

    RE: .-1
    
    Foster children are covered under medicaid.  We moved to NH with foster
    children from California.  NH provided the supervision, but not the
    benefits.  This meant that NH physicians, hospitals, etc. had to figure
    out how to apply to become valid California health vendors.  Never did
    get California medicaid to pay any bills so we paid ourselves.

    Does anyone know if this idea of redefining the "Family" is alive or
    dead?
    
    FJK