 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:29
|
|
By the way, Ming, gays don't cost any more per-person than straight people, so there goes that argument. 
http://www.hrc.org/Content/Navigati...s/Cost/Cost.htm
quote:
In February 1999, Sally Fox, Seattle's benefits and safety director, told The Associated Press, "After nine years of doing this, I'm here to tell you it's one of the best things we did. Our health costs increased in proportion to the people we were covering, but their costs were the same as everyone else's." |
While HIV infection is higher, so is the trend of higher standards of fitness and hygeine. Looks like they nullify eachother.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
No, it's not the point that they all get sick, it's that they're all high risk from their intentional action.
There is no inherent high risk in being gay, period.
There is inherent high risk in being sexually promicuous, gay or straight. |
Again... the choice crap... you agree that it's a money issue that gives them the right.
Let's see... one more time.
As a group, gays have a higher health risk based on insurance actuarial tables - and will cost a company more money in the long run based on these statistics.
Not all gays get sick
As a group, smokers have a higher health risk based on insurance actuarial tables - and will cost a company more money in the long run based on these statistics.
Not all smokers get sick
There is NO difference.
When it comes to money, it will cost a company more money in insurance claims if they employ smokers, gays, women who are going to have children, heavy drinkers, whatever... CHOICE doesn't change anything...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:29
|
|
Also see this:
http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/compaqplus/domestic.html
quote:
Employers are using the excuse of high expenses as their main reason behind not offering these same benefits to their homosexual employees. They think it will cost them more in health care contributions for homosexual employees than it does for heterosexual ones. Their main concern? AIDS. In reality, many current domestic partner plans relate that: "Less than one percent of the workforce participates, AIDS health care benefit costs come to only about one-tenth those of a premature baby, gay men do not always get AIDS, and AIDS is not exclusive to gay men" (Partners-Domestic). |
quote:
The University of Iowa Task Force did a study to find out how much HIV-related expenses would cost them if benefits were offered to its employees, faculty, and staff. Using an estimation of 8,000 employees that would be eligible for the program and a high-range participation of 152 of the University's faculty and staff, they determined the total cost would be $328,016. The total cost of health claims of *all* employees in 1990 was $18,971,309. The HIV-incurred costs would only be .8% to 1.7% of those costs. These figures show that employers should not be overly concerned about outrageous medical bills for their homosexual employees. In fact, preganancy claims are the highest costs that get charged to employers (University).
Law firms that have started to cover partners of homosexual employers have found the costs a lot less than they had anticipated. Milbank, Tweed estimated their costs to be $137,000 for the year when in fact they turned out to be less than $10,000 (Barge, 34). Other law firms claimed their numbers to be similar. The reason that these costs are so low is that many employees don't take advantage of the benefit, either out of fear of homophobia or because their partners already have coverage at their own places of employment. Some employers who have tried to implement a benefits plan for domestic partners are finding that their insurance carriers refuse to offer the service. Fortunatley, because these insurers are realizing that the costs between homosexuals and heterosexual domestic partners are not vastly different, they are becoming less severe in their denial of benefits for homosexuals. A partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Marc Wolinsky says, "Within the next two years, not offering health benefits to gay and lesbian employees will become the exception rather than the rule" (Barge, 35). |
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-01-2005 01:51
|