July 29, 2008

Me and Bella.

In the NYT.

The whole diavlog is here.

ADDED: Here's the clip the NYT is featuring:

75 comments:

David said...

According to NYT, Bella is an author and Ann is a blogger.

Why isn't Ann a law professor and Bella a blogger?

Is it because Ann isn't from New York?

Would the descriptions of the two have been different if Ann were still in Brooklyn?

Does the NYT think that labeling someone a blogger, an author or a law professor make a difference?

Does Ann care?

Should we care?

TitusIAmSpartacus! said...

I didn't watch the video but what a dyke that Bella is (from the picture).

Who's Bella?

Should I know her?

Is she fabulous?

m00se said...

Heh...

I remember when I was still single and working in an IT department with a bunch of married people with kids.

They used to get time off to deal with family issues, and would often not work the scut shifts due to needing time with their families.

I used to talk about how hard we had it as singles, and how they were taking advantage of us.

Now that I'm married and have kids, all I can say is *HA*.

Simon said...

"Single people can't put siblings on their insurance." Its... I mean, I can never remember who I'm quoting when I say this, but it doesn't even rise to the respectability of being wrong. It's silly, and Althouse lances it easily - neither can married people. So where's the discrimination, Bella?

Methadras said...

Bella seems like a nice woman, but childlike in her argumentation. Of course you can't put anyone other than your spouse or your child on your health insurance. This notion that discrimination of all types must be stamped out is stupid. There will always be discrimination of one form or another. This is life and this is the natural way of things. Ms. DePaulos issues with benefits to married men and women vs. single men or woman is overly simplistic especially in the case of social security benefits and beneficiaries. Ms. DePaulo either doesn't seem to grasp the notion that marriage aside form a religious institution is also a legal institution that carries legal ramifications. She also seems to be neglecting the fact that these are long held benefits of marriage and she can gain these benefits by becoming married or living in a state that recognizes legal interpersonal relationships outside of marriage.

So childish in her thinking.

Clint said...

I mistakenly read your description as a "divalog". That's even better in my opinion.

Mortimer Brezny said...

So childish in her thinking.

She's probably a virgin.

chickenlittle said...

Who'e the guy on the right?

Simon said...

Clint,
I suggested that a year and a half ago:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/11/its-me-and-amy-sullivan.html

Nothing new under the sun... ;)

Clint said...

Simon that post wasn't in my chain of title.

I was a BFP (bona fide poster).

Sorry, bar exam tomorrow.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Host with the Most said...

Ann,

It's 12:05 pm PST.
Did you feel the earthquake?

BillHall said...

Geez, I hope Althouse is ok. 5.8 is no joke.

nansealinks said...

spouse who never works. (you said it at least twice)

Are you talking to me?

25 years and I never worked. you know what happened to me when i tried to go back to work after 25 years of never working, guess what, Bella

I have no experience. I am good enough for fast food or walmart check out, which is enough to make me go postal and put me in a behavioural health clinic.

disability you are fine with. You know some of people on disability are people who never take care of themselves, get diabetes, have to stroll around in walmart in motorized carts, and you are fine with a few of these people milking the system, but not me who is from a family with lots of diabetes history and keep my bmi at 20 and my blood pressure under 110/70.

Thank you., I know. I am the exception. You know in Europe they actually had a study where housewives had less breast cancer than working women. Maybe I would volunteer for a study like that. The health of woman who never worked against the health of women who always have. The other thing is that I could never marry again for benefits or for money. After having been through 25 years of that, I still hold marriage sacred,even moreso than before, and the only reason I would marry is for love.

BTW, i got divorced. I don't have any health insurance. I dont get alimony. Never have. IF i get a terrible disease or illness, I have considered going away to an island and dying with it there. I won't burden the system or my mind with trying to live beyond myself. My only insurance is keeping myself in top physical condition and regulating my body by listening to what my own body is telling me and ignoring much of this noise. Yoga stuff. It's kinda how I expect to find love, too.

About the only positions I am having trouble with is bending over backwards. Maybe that'll come when I feel the love again.

AJ Lynch said...

Are you getting laid out there Ann? The news reported an earthquake hit L.A. area.

nansealinks said...

fries or a shake with that...

i said it before on this blog.

see, it's better that i stay away from fast food.

Simon said...

Clint, good luck for tomorrow.

perry masonmint said...

Why aren't we celebrating the fact that Bush got to do his favorite thing today -- signing an execution order?!?

Seriously, he's got to be very happy today. As witness this golden oldie (courtesy of Tucker Carlson):

"Bush's brand of forthright tough-guy populism can be appealing, and it has played well in Texas. Yet occasionally there are flashes of meanness visible beneath it.

While driving back from the speech later that day, Bush mentions Karla Faye Tucker, a double murderer who was executed in Texas last year. In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. 'Did you meet with any of them?' I ask.

Bush whips around and stares at me. 'No, I didn't meet with any of them,' he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. 'I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' 'What was her answer?' I wonder.

'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'

I must look shocked -- ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel, even for someone as militantly anticrime as Bush -- because he immediately stops smirking.

'It's tough stuff,' Bush says, suddenly somber, 'but my job is to enforce the law.' As it turns out, the Larry King-Karla Faye Tucker exchange Bush recounted never took place, at least not on television. During her interview with King, however, Tucker did imply that Bush was succumbing to election-year pressure from pro-death penalty voters. Apparently Bush never forgot it. He has a long memory for slights."


I don't know about you guys, but I couldn't be more proud that my president is an obviously degenerate psychopath.

blake said...

Well, Althouse is pretty nearby and we didn't feel much. A little wobble. Earthquakes can be treacherous, skipping one area while devastating another, but I'm sure she's okay.

In fact, she might not have even felt it, if she were on the road.

TitusIAmSpartacus! said...

"Who's the guy on the right?"

I was going to say that.

I bet she is known to strap one one.

Paddy O. said...

Turns out it was a 5.4, in Chino Hills. All new construction there. So, almost certainly no damage.

It felt like a big truck going by, until I realized a big truck probably shouldn't shake the ground I was on.

Mostly a gentle rumble, that happened to go on long enough to realize it was the earth moving and to start pondering the majesty of that fact.

Good times.

X said...

I'm glad he signed the order masonmint. You seem to be quite sympathetic to a serial murderer/rapist and a double axe murderess.

Here's some free advice. Don't murder people if you don't want to be executed and Bush is your last chance at clemency. Please don't kill me indeed.

Lawgiver said...

I don't know about you guys, but I couldn't be more proud that my president is an obviously degenerate psychopath.

I too am proud of President Bush. It's not every degenerate psychopath who can steal an election, murder 100s of millions, poison mother nature and get any scot-free.

Of course I too am a degenerate psychopath, murderer, hater, racist, etc, etc.

Oh, and welcome to the club.

Henry said...

Bella is single, so married people are her target.

But unfairness is a curve, not a point. Somewhere out there is the married person with one kid, ready to write the book on the unfairness of married people with two kids getting more kid-coverage for the same family policy.

I have three kids, which is really really unfair. To someone.

perry masonmint said...

X said...

I'm glad he signed the order masonmint. You seem to be quite sympathetic to a serial murderer/rapist and a double axe murderess.

Here's some free advice. Don't murder people if you don't want to be executed and Bush is your last chance at clemency. Please don't kill me indeed.
3:06 PM


You get off on executions too?

What are you wasting your time here for then? You obviously have a bright future in Republican politics.

Clint said...

Thanks Simon. I'll need it.

blake said...

"Single people can't put siblings on their insurance." Its... I mean, I can never remember who I'm quoting when I say this, but it doesn't even rise to the respectability of being wrong. It's silly, and Althouse lances it easily - neither can married people. So where's the discrimination, Bella?

That's like saying gay people are free to marry, just like straights. A gay man can, after all, marry a straight woman, just like a straight man.

It really comes down to what the point of a particular benefit is supposed to be.

The whole point of marriage, after all, is to create a stable society for the next generation to be raised in. You can put some hard and fast rules in with that.

Start making it about "being happy" and it doesn't matter who marries whom (or what, for that matter).

Some benefits are geared the same way: There's an idea that benefit X promotes value Y. But if it's just a matter of some amount of money/resources/etc. being directed toward a certain person, there's no reason that they shouldn't be able to direct those resources however they want.

(Caveat: I haven't seen the diavlog yet.)

Simon said...

Gee, Perry, if we wanted to see someone regurgitate Digby, we could just read Hullabaloo ourselves.

In any event, "Private Gray was convicted of committing brutal crimes, including two murders, an attempted murder and three rapes." Convicted, mind you, in 1988. So far as I know, Gray does not dispute his substantive guilt, and he "'ha[s] had fair trial and fair review. The people of the State are also entitled to due process of law.'" Coleman v. Balkcom, 541 U.S. 949, 956 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from denial of cert) (quoting Stein v. New York, 346 U.S. 156, 197 (1953) (per Jackson, J.)).

X said...

You get off on executions too?

Not really, but it doesn't bother me in this case. Will you be saddened when the serial killer rapist dies?

Henry said...

According to The New York Times article, Gray plead guilty to two murders and five rapes in North Carolina State court. He was separately court martialed for two murders on army post.

Simon said...

x - I'm sure Perry empathizes dearly with a man who's about to become another of Chimpy McHallibushurton's victims. Poor Ronald! Another matyr of the left lost to the Bushitler police state!

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

Some benefits are geared the same way: There's an idea that benefit X promotes value Y. But if it's just a matter of some amount of money/resources/etc. being directed toward a certain person, there's no reason that they shouldn't be able to direct those resources however they want.

Easy for you to say since you aren't the one paying for the benefits. The insurance company is, through the accumulated premiums of not just yourself(the insured) but also the entire pool of insured many of whom use minimal amounts of benefits.

Insurance is to cover the insured and/or provide for the "dependents" or survivors of the insured. Not just to be handed out like party favors to anyone who you like. If Bella's sister was her dependent, it would be a different story. If Bella's sister lived with her, was dependent on Bella's income to live and was disabled, perhaps with Down's Syndrome, THEN she might qualify for insurance coverage. More likely she would be covered under Publicly funded insurance....welfare.

Of course that is just what welfare is all about......creating an entire class of people who are dependent on the Government.

AJ Lynch said...

When I seize my evil turn as emperor, employers will get the heck out of the benefits admin business and simply give every employee a pool of money (same amount regardless of marital status/ kids, etc) to spend as the employee sees fit.

The employee can use the money to buy health insurance or booze or cigarettes or porn or drugs. I won't care because I will be emperor. And my No. 1 Rule will be Absolutely No Whining!

Of course even emperors have problems....WTF will I do with all those newly unemployed Human Resources dickheads??

X said...

So DBQ, I guess you'd be OK with employers giving hiring preferences to singles since the bennies will cost them less, increasing profitability. After all, the company's money isn't a party favor.

I agree with blake's comment.

blake said...

DBQ,

Of course I'm paying the benefits. That's what premiums are for.

I think you miss my point.

In an insurance situation, if I'm insuring myself and X against one of our deaths, the premiums are scaled regardless of X's relationship to me.

Let's say X is my wife, and I have her insured so I can reasonably take care of our children should she die. That's a usual situation.

But let's say now that my wife is out of the picture, and X is my brother, who's very good at maintaining a household and taking care of kids, and less good at working a job.

In the case of the insurance company, why should these two situations be different?

In the case of employment benefits, I'm supposed to be getting $X worth of benefits as part of my compensation: Why should it matter whether $X goes to a wife, a lover, a sibling, etc.?

There's no magic money here. In the first case, my premiums are supposed to cover the risk; in the second case, the cost is supposed to be part of my salary.

X said...

Everybody had better get used to the idea of couple benefits going away or at least singles getting cash compensation for the difference with the onset of gay marriage.

Singles were willing to accept uneven benefits when marriage was an institution to promote families and children and the good of society's future. But when it's because two male dudes want to get in on the benefits gravy-train, not so much.

perry masonmint said...

Simon said...

x - I'm sure Perry empathizes dearly with a man who's about to become another of Chimpy McHallibushurton's victims. Poor Ronald! Another matyr of the left lost to the Bushitler police state!


Ah, the sledgehammer irony of the truly depraved wingnut amoralist.

Say what you will about Ann, she definitely gets a better class of bloodthirsty degenerates as readers than Free Republic.

SteveR said...

One thing is fair, anyone not liking the system is free to leave.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

But let's say now that my wife is out of the picture, and X is my brother, who's very good at maintaining a household and taking care of kids, and less good at working a job.

In the case of the insurance company, why should these two situations be different?


Because he isn't your dependent, just a bum and a flake. As a hypothetical participant in the same group plan I would object to you covering your brother becuase the more benefits that are paid out, the more expensive the plan is for eveyone. If the insurance company has to pay out benefits for anyone and everyone instead of keeping it narrowed to a selected group the premiums are going to go up and up and up and up for everyone. Cost control.

As to your health insurance premiums that your employer pays for you, being a part of your salary they are considered non taxable compensation. Should you even be allowed to cover your bum of a brother the portion that your employer pays for his benefit is taxable income to you because of current IRS laws.

You are talking two different scenarios here. 1. The benefits that are paid out by the insurance company and 2. The premiums that are coerced from... I mean paid for by your employer.

X: The employer in a group plan pays more for a family than a single person. Some companies get around this unfairness by only paying for the employee's coverage and then you pay for your family. There is also the age unfairness. The older employees cost a lot more to cover than the younger employees. The employer can discriminate on age just as they can't on marital status. The employer can set up a system where he only pays a certain dollar amount per employee then the older employee has a larger co-pay of premiums.

Everyone wants a free lunch without considering who is really paying :-(


There is no way to completely level the playing field but to start allowing you to add your brother and his kids and your crack addicted sister and her kids and her boyfriend and his kids.....well you see, the system will just fall completely apart.

Personally....I'd find a way to lay you off if you were my employee.

To keep costs down and keep the premiums from going up for everyone else the Insurance Company limits coverage to your dependents. Same thing for the employer.

nansealinks said...

anyone not liking the system is free to leave.

that's what he said.

He made out money wise and girlfriend wise, but not so much healthwise. Guess why he has work, and I don't.

I don't need it. I can afford to be lazy and healthy.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

errr Can't discriminate on age.

Simon said...

Perry - A better class of bloodthirsty degenerates, to be sure, but alas, just the same regular class of loony one-note-per-string identikit moonbats.

SteveR said...

If life were fair we'd be living in a hut in the sub Saharan plain. But its not fair, we live in America. Woe to our ungrateful, selfish asses.

X said...

Personally....I'd find a way to lay you off if you were my employee.

So you'd discriminate based on benefits expenses. Me too. With everyone. I'd consider the overall compensation cost of the employee when making hiring and raise decisions.

MadisonMan said...

DBQ -- I read that instead of the wife taking care of the kids, the brother was. But they were still his kids. So they're both performing the same function, wife and brother. That doesn't seem to be how you interpreted what blake wrote.

rhhardin said...

Althouse won't hear about the earthquake for three hours. She's on Pacific time.

Meade said...

"...I've often thought I should just charitably marry someone... I'd just marry them to be nice..."

Gee, I'm single now, happily single, and thought I'd just remain that way.

But considering all the benefits, I guess I'd really be a fool not to take a close look if Althouse were to, just out of niceness, propose to pity-marry me.

What could I offer in return? Let's see - I could prune those redbuds, take out the garbage, trap squirrels.

nansealinks said...

pity marrying is one step above pity intercoursing, don't you think?

I've had offers of that since my recent vow of celebacy which a couple men and one or two fratboys have termed as frigidity and offered to give me a thaw.

How generous of them to play with fire.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So they're both performing the same function, wife and brother. That doesn't seem to be how you interpreted what blake wrote.

So if Blake had a neighbor babysitting the kids for free or a third world servant that he wasn't paying who was performing the function of wife, he should be able to put him/her on his health insurance coverage? The function is beside the point. We are talking about the legal definition and status of dependency. Because his (hypothetical) brother is doing him a favor, taking care of the kids, it doesn't him a dependant on Blake. The children ARE dependant until age 18 or 21 if full time students.

That was another issue in the blogvid. Ann suggested that it would be great to keep her boys on her health insurance long after they are no longer dependent on her because it would be a good financial deal....for her and them.

In the case of Bella in the blogvideo, she wants to have the right to just add someone like her sister to her insurance coverage because she loves her sister. That's nice. How about Bella pony up some of her own money and buy her sister health insurance instead of trying to freeride on the backs of all the other premium payers.

In Blake's instance of life insurance. You can only buy life insurance on someone's life if you can show an insurable interest.

In dealing with life insurance, an "insurable interest" generally means a substantial interest engendered by love and affection in the case of persons related by blood, and a lawful and substantial economic interest in the continued life of the insured in other cases. People are always considered to have an insurable interest in their own lives, and generally also have an insurable interest in the lives of their spouses and dependents. Business partners may have an insurable interest in each other, and a corporation may have an insurable interest in its employees' lives, particularly key employees.

So, probably Blake could insure his brother's life if he can show the insurable interest, which he probably could.

Group insurance has certain restrictions and in most cases the employer only insures the employee up to a certain amount relative to their salary and the employee pays the premiums over life insurane coverage over $50,000. If you want to buy additional insurance for your spouse/domestic partner or children you generally do it out of your own pocket and not on the employers dime.

Them's the laws.

blake said...

Because he isn't your dependent, just a bum and a flake.

OK, I know it's not me. MadMan got exactly what I was saying.

He's not a bum and a flake, he's a person who's better at managing the household than I am, and a caregiver to children that has a real interest in them, unlike the professional(s) I would have to hire to replace my MIA wife.

And I'll say, for the record, that she was killed by terrorists while buying American flags for the 4H club, just so maybe you'll think twice before assassinating her character.

As a hypothetical participant in the same group plan I would object to you covering your brother becuase the more benefits that are paid out, the more expensive the plan is for eveyone.

Well, then, you should object to spouses and children on the same plan, right?

If the insurance company has to pay out benefits for anyone and everyone instead of keeping it narrowed to a selected group

Of course, but I didn't add "anyone and everyone", I referred to a specific person fulfilling a specific role, said role already covered by the plan, but limited in a way that isn't really logical or consistent.

As to your health insurance premiums that your employer pays for you, being a part of your salary they are considered non taxable compensation.

The root of the problem, if you ask me.

You are talking two different scenarios here. 1. The benefits that are paid out by the insurance company

Which I maintain I pay for with premiums.

and 2. The premiums that are coerced from... I mean paid for by your employer.

From what I worked out, my particular employer--this is the first job I had that has actual benefits, allegedly--is "coerced" to the tune of $28/month, for some dental coverage.

AFAICT, they must get a kickback from the health insurance company, since it would cost double to insure myself through them what it would cost to do it alone.

Frankly, I prefer my normal mode of doing things, which is just to have my employer or client give me money, not things that aren't money.

X: The employer in a group plan pays more for a family than a single person. Some companies get around this unfairness by only paying for the employee's coverage and then you pay for your family.

Yeah, that's sort of how it works for me, though I swear they're trying to make a profit on the rest of my family.

There is also the age unfairness. The older employees cost a lot more to cover than the younger employees. The employer can discriminate on age just as they can't on marital status.

Another reason "benefits" are a bad idea.

The employer can set up a system where he only pays a certain dollar amount per employee then the older employee has a larger co-pay of premiums.

If we were trying to be fair, we would do things based on how much was paid in. A kid who put in his $100/month at 20 should probably get to keep paying $100/month at 80.

Everyone wants a free lunch without considering who is really paying :-(

I still think you're not getting my point. In a traditional situation, where the man works and the woman stays at home, if the man dies, a sum of cash "replaces" his contribution to the family. (From a purely mechanical standpoint, that is.)

If the woman dies, she's a lot harder to replace--again, assuming traditional roles of housekeeper, maid, nanny, and we won't even get into escort costs.

If you can replace the woman with a caring other relative--I used brother, but it could be cousin, mother, whatever--that person has a lot of the same (financial) risks of the traditional housewife, with none of the benefits or protections.

well you see, the system will just fall completely apart.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Personally....I'd find a way to lay you off if you were my employee.

No, you wouldn't, because I'm making and/or saving you several times over what you're paying me.

To keep costs down and keep the premiums from going up for everyone else the Insurance Company limits coverage to your dependents. Same thing for the employer.

I'm not asking for spouse + more more more! I'm asking for a spouse substitute.

That's all. It's not really outrageous.

Lawgiver said...


Say what you will about Ann, she definitely gets a better class of bloodthirsty degenerates as readers than Free Republic.


Yes! Yes! That's me you're talking about! I have a guild on World of Warcraft named Bloodthirsty Degenerates. We love to kill and pillage. We see it as our duty and if we can do it in a degenerate manner, so much the better. Some of our best members can kick, blind, poison, kidney punch, and eviscerate you in under 10 seconds. It is sweet.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Some of our best members can kick, blind, poison, kidney punch, and eviscerate you in under 10 seconds. It is sweet.

I hate rogues. Hunter's Mark on you!!!

merrymary said...

This policy is based on perhaps outdated relationships as it the past one spouse - usually the wife - would stay home and care for the home and the kids. This is still the case in some homes. But it is of value to try to keep the family unit in tact in that one spouse can take a job where more time might be afforded to the kids and the home fires.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

I still think you're not getting my point. In a traditional situation, where the man works and the woman stays at home, if the man dies, a sum of cash "replaces" his contribution to the family. (From a purely mechanical standpoint, that is.)

Ok.. I think we were getting confused between adding a non dependent person onto your employer sponsored group health insurance plan, which was what Bella was talking about. And you buying individual life insurance on your brother (sorry if I offended, I thought we were talking hypothetically). Of course you can insure the life of your brother. That doesn't require that your brother be a dependent. Just insurable interest. See my example above.

You are quite correct. If the premiums on group benefits packages costs were included as taxable income the cost would come down considerably because people would be more prudent in spending money.

I'm not asking for spouse + more more more! I'm asking for a spouse substitute.

Health insurance only allows you to add dependents. Since your brother isn't really dependent on you under the definition of the law he can't qualify. The reason that is, is to prevent people from willy nilly adding and removing people from the policy. What if you wanted to add your live in 25 yr old girlfriend this year, and then next year change to your 50 yr old brother and then the next year change back to a different live in girlfriend with a different age? The insurance premiums are based on your age and makes basic assumptions about the average age of dependents to calculate family rates.

Under your request there would be no way for the insurance actuaries to be able to plan. Under your request your employer would have no way to control costs or budget for the costs of the benefit package. It would be a crap shoot every year.

I'm looking at it from the point of the provider of the plan (the people I generally am representing) You are looking at it as the getter or beneficary of the plan.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

they must get a kickback from the health insurance company, since it would cost double to insure myself through them what it would cost to do it alone.

No, the reason it costs more through your employer for health insurance is because the insurance company is forced to cover a group of people, some of whom are probably not very healthy and many of whom are going to abuse the benefits by making excessive claims. The insurance company HAS to take all eligible employees and their families whether they are on death's door or not. So the entire group is paying more for the unhealthy people in the plan. When you apply for health insurance on your own, your premiums are based your personal health and age.

This is the very reason why the coverage is limited to spouses and immediate dependents. To prevent people from putting on their friend, sister, brother, or what have you who are NOT dependent upon you because you KNOW they have serious medical issues.

blake said...

Ok.. I think we were getting confused between adding a non dependent person onto your employer sponsored group health insurance plan, which was what Bella was talking about.

I'm talking about someone who fills the same role and is in fact dependent as a result of filling that role.

I don't know the legal definition of dependent--I thought it more than 50% of their income coming from you--but I mean, you know, dependent, because they're home taking care of the kids, house, etc.

And you buying individual life insurance on your brother (sorry if I offended, I thought we were talking hypothetically).

I don't have a brother; nonetheless, I felt compelled to defend his honor. And that of my hypothetically deceased wife. ;-)

You are quite correct. If the premiums on group benefits packages costs were included as taxable income the cost would come down considerably because people would be more prudent in spending money.

Well, the difference between "Oh, free health care!" and "What? I have to pay taxes on it, as though I had actually received the money and spent it on health care?" is obviously huge.

Health insurance only allows you to add dependents. Since your brother isn't really dependent on you under the definition of the law he can't qualify. The reason that is, is to prevent people from willy nilly adding and removing people from the policy. What if you wanted to add your live in 25 yr old girlfriend this year, and then next year change to your 50 yr old brother and then the next year change back to a different live in girlfriend with a different age?

I would have a far more active social life than I ever wanted, is what that would mean right there.

The insurance premiums are based on your age and makes basic assumptions about the average age of dependents to calculate family rates.

Assumptions? Don't they, you know, ask?

I'm looking at it from the point of the provider of the plan (the people I generally am representing) You are looking at it as the getter or beneficary of the plan.

Not quite. I'm looking more in the abstract from both perspectives.

I hate insurance. I hate it with a passion. I could get free medical care for myself, but I'd rather die than fill out the forms.

You can imagine how I feel about socialized medicine, too. :-)

blake said...

No, the reason it costs more through your employer for health insurance is because the insurance company is forced to cover...

Really? If I go in with cancer and AIDS and my wife has Hepatitis C (Hi, Pamela!) and I've got six kids with a variety of exotic diseases, they have to cover that?

'cause I suppose that's worth looking into. Heh.

I can't actually get insurance at my workplace: It's all about this other thing, where they pay for everything. They have no plan that does what insurance is supposed to do, i.e., cover unexpected catastrophic circumstances.

I must work with some sick folk. A couple with children has to pay $1600 a month for coverage.

I'd rather tack that on to my mortgage and die in a nice house....

dr kill said...

Blake makes the good argument. It is all about the money, but the logical follow-ups are -

Why an employee can't just choose a person to receive the offered benefits/

What's love got to do with it? Why, if same-sex marriage is the law, why not marry your father or mother to simplify estate planning?

Seems the old foundation of the Republic argument for old-fashioned marriage is fraudulent, if so many kids are born to unmarried moms. Do these kids get benefits if their father isn't the husband of their mom? Do they need DNA testing?

I see a chance for some serious actuarial consulting comissions in DBQ's future.

David said...

Is this the most boring set of comments on this blog in recent memory?

Think it is . . . .

Patm said...

okay, totally off topic - Ms. Althouse looks very nice with her hair pulled back!

AJ Lynch said...

Lucky it is not Coffee House Friday/ Happy Hour. Or we would have to ask DBQ and Blake to take their discussion outside.

Btw- Blake you are right - as I said in an earlier comment, just give everyone the same pot of benefit money and let them go and spend it however they want.

Then we would not need to listen to superfluous Bloggingheads video-Ann would have had to choose another topic on which we would waste out time.

Btw II - social security is the issue that really screws singles. I ma surpised gay movement has not grabbed onto it as a gross inequity. They would make more progress with that IMO than marriage rights.

garage mahal said...

The insurance company HAS to take all eligible employees and their families whether they are on death's door or not

The horror! How are they supposed to make any money off sick people?

Christy said...

As a single professional woman, my response to Bella is the old cliched, "Life isn't fair. Get over it."

The only discrimination I ever felt were minor. Sure, I noticed that married folks got benefits I didn't. I also observed that I was able to invest a higher precentage of my income than the married folks generally did. I figure I came out ahead. Way ahead.

Besides, after a certain point, benfits are negotiable. Okay, that's elitist, I know. But the fact is that Bella's attitude has a taint of the old world rigid class system. They begrudge everything you get because that leaves a smaller pie for them. Downright un-American I call it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Assumptions? Don't they, you know, ask.

Look up actuarial. No, they don't ask because you are a cog in the machine and they don't care about 'you'. Plus in actuarial terms, we are all just numbers in insurance land and in Government land.

Really? If I go in with cancer and AIDS and my wife has Hepatitis C (Hi, Pamela!) and I've got six kids with a variety of exotic diseases, they have to cover that?

YES!! this is why insurance is so expensive for group plans Can you distinguish between a group plan and an individual plan? Think really hard.

The "group" that GM and Ford and other companies are committed to (I was going to say forced) demand that everyone....everyone....is covered. To mitigate the cost of covering EVERYONE the premiums are jacked up to the sky. Hmmmm? could there be a connection between this and the imminent bankrupcy and demise of these companies?????

Cost control is why coverage is limited to spouses, registerd domestic partners and children and not just anyone you happen to be having a fling with or who you would like to bestow benefits upon like mana from heaven.

Says Garage: The horror! How are they supposed to make any money off sick people

Gee.... DUH.... Garage... Step back a moment and use some grey cells. The insurance companies DON'T make money off of sick people. They lose money! Duh to the max! This is why they don't want to insure the sick and have HIGH premiums for those who have pre-existing conditions. This is why group rates are high. They have to even out the loss/payout ratio.

The insurance companies don't want to insure sick people. This is why my husband....self employed... not free riding on some company group plan has NO insurance. Pre-existing condition and uninsurable.

So while, this is part of what I do for a living (counseling businesses on benefit and retirement plans) my husband doesn't get to participate... Boo Hoo. Kay serah serah. This is how things work until somebody changes the laws, or makes us all dependents of the State.

This free riding, give it to me mentality is going to kill us.

nansealinks said...

life's not fair.

for everything else there's a lawyer.

may he who pays the most win.

blake said...

Look up actuarial. No, they don't ask because you are a cog in the machine and they don't care about 'you'. Plus in actuarial terms, we are all just numbers in insurance land and in Government land.

Oh, I'm pretty familiar with actuarial tables--but have I mentioned that I hate insurance?

YES!! this is why insurance is so expensive for group plans Can you distinguish between a group plan and an individual plan? Think really hard.

Now, now, don't get snippy, young lady. I've compared group and individual plans and found the group ones to be more expensive even for rather sick individuals.

But I probably wasn't comparing apples and apples.

Meade said...

I could fetch her newspaper, scrape snow and ice off her car, shovel the front walk. Draw her bath. Pick her up at the airport. Rinse and dry her wine glasses. Form a circle-of -safety to protect her from Hillary Clinton-type madwomen who randomly come up to innocent people on urban sidewalks and punch them in the back. I make excellent salads, grill superb steaks and vegetables. Play a piano sonata. Pick up dry cleaning. Wait patiently while she shops for shoes.

Ann Althouse said...

I have very valuable benefits that I'm not using because I'm unmarried. Maybe I should go for a cash transaction.

Meade said...

Okay. Forget the services. I have cash - very very valuable cash.

So what are the benefits and just how much valuable cash do you suppose they're worth?

fcai said...

Who is that fat ugly dude on the right?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

You know the weird thing is that in 1 year she actually will marry him.

jaltcoh said...

Wow, Meade, way to come up with a plan and follow through!

Meade said...

I was, ahem, between wives.

Now if you'll excuse me while I go and draw a certain someone's bath...