Comments on: Mainstream Media Picks Up Insurance Scandal

By: Doctor Rockso

Doctor Rockso — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:55:05 +0000

I completely agree with Greg when he says, “Why is it the responsibility of the state to provide health insurance to non-employee adults?” If you work, then YOU and only you should get insurance. Why should the rest of us bear the costs for your spouse, life partner, or kids? Let them get their own jobs. It’s high time we put a stop to people thinking they’re entitled to insurance just because they’ve got some sort of relationship with someone that has a job. Good call, Greg.

By: Bridget

Bridget — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:59:49 +0000

JM is right …

Since this change would have to be enacted by McDonnell - Kaine hasn’t given anything to anyone… except to take a parting shot at the new governor.

Tim Kaine: Obama’s choice to lead the DNC …. produced such great results in VA races for the AG, lieutenant governor and governor for his party.

Tim Kaine’s legacy: An emaciated state budget and nanny statism.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/04/dnc-chair-thank-goodness-these-corrosive-tea-partiers-are-destroying-the-gop/

By: Karla H

Karla H — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:07:23 +0000

The Washington ComPost finally had an article on this yesterday. And today they broke with the news of a breech of the email system in England revealing the collusion to hide facts on global warming! Wow… maybe tomorrow they will report that high button shoes are out of fashion!

By: JM

JM — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:53:30 +0000

Forgot to source my statement. I couldn’t find a link to the NBC 4 story, but this Washington Post article says essentially the same thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/03/AR2009120304329.html

By: JM

JM — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:50:45 +0000

I heard on the channel 4 news this AM that Kaine’s expasion of health insurance coverage would extend to any adult living under the same roof with a state employee. The broadcast further stated that his includes homosexual partners, non-married heterosexual partners, adult children, in-laws, and even room mates! This is insane!

The final decision will rest with governor-elect McDonnell. let’s hope he’ll display more common sense and fiscal restraint.

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:17:37 +0000

Wow, I wonder if David Marsden supports this? After all, he says he wasnts to “work with both parties to hold the line on taxes.” Easier to hold the line on taxes if you cut wasteful spending, isn’t it?

By: Greg L

Greg L — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:12:35 +0000

Why is it the responsibility of the state to provide health insurance to non-employee adults? Why doesn’t the state provide auto insurance to people who live with state employees as well? Why not insure co-habitants of state employees against losses from lawsuits, frogs falling out of the sky, and plagues of locusts?

Or more properly, why insure co-habitants of state employees for anything at all?

The state has no business doing anything other than standard employee benefits to state workers, solely for the purpose of being competitive in the marketplace for good employees. Any time government wants to re-purpose employee benefits for the purpose of broad social engineering, it puts taxpayers at risk. There’s no valid purpose in doing so, it wastes taxpayer dollars for dubious reasons, and is entirely unrelated to the purpose of providing competitive employee benefits.

There is simply no defensible reason for this.

By: Peter Danlyn

Peter Danlyn — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:30:26 +0000

The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor’s degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data.

Higher than average household income = more tax dollars to the state. Lots of Northern Virginians think it unfair that they pay more taxes than their southern neighbors, but tax dollars aren’t doled back to the area in equal percentage. They whine that they want something done about this inequity. If you feel that way, don’t you think other groups that give more than they get should receive the same consideration?

Families pay the same for health insurance whether they have two or twelve kids. Likely, the ones with more kids represent a greater expense to the health plan than would two high-income men living together in a commited relationship. It’s even possible, if not probable, that the insurance outlay for the gay couple is less than what they would pay in premiums. That certainly cannot be said of a family with multiple children.

People in this forum have already said they couldn’t care less about the homosexual aspect of this argument, and that they wouldn’t mind the opportunity to insure a parent, or brother, or other family member instead of a spouse. To many, it’s about the strength of commitment to a person, not about a marriage license.

If this is just about dollars, why not charge a graduated premium based on the number of children in the household? Why extend eligibility, or offer discounts to anyone other than the actual employee? The state could save a whole lot of money that way.

By: Greg S

Greg S — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:41:10 +0000

The Stench of Moral Rot

By: Charles

Charles — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:13:39 +0000

I read it first over at freerepublic.com, which linked to the public comment board.

So maybe you should yell at them for not crediting you.

I mentioned you there though…

By: Joe D

Joe D — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:09:43 +0000

Thanks for keeping us updated.