🚀 go-pugleaf

Barbara Amero wrote in message <34DF7D2D.5709@dbis.ns.ca>...
>BCLP Leader wrote:
>>
>> Barbara Amero wrote in message <34D7A305.D5A@dbis.ns.ca>...
>
>[...]
>
>> >those Insurance Companies who give the so-called
>> >dependent spouse the boot after divorce!
>>
>> Maybe those dependent people could get a job and pay the premiums?
>
>Maybe you are confused?

Maybe. Maybe not.

> Dependent spouse here is
>referring to the spouse listed on the Insurance Plan
>as the dependent, along with dependent children if the
>couple has any.

As far as I know, children can stay on insurance plans even after divorce.
This seems reasonable because the parents have an ongoing obligation towards
children. There is no (or at least, there should be no) coresponding ongoing
obligation to an ex-spouse. That's kinda the whole idea behind the "divorce"
concept, isn't it?

Or are you suggesting that ex-spouses have some ongoing post-divorce
obligations towards each other? If so, please enumerate them.

> Such does not necessarily mean that the
>so-called dependent spouse does not have a "job." For e.g.,
>I was listed on my ex-husbands Insurance Plan as the
>dependent spouse, but for most of the long-term marriage
>I had a "job", other than the job of homemaker. Except for
>the latter years of the marriage in which I owned and operated
>a businnes, the jobs I had in the workforce were part time.
>It would not have made financial sense for me to purchase
>individual expensive medical/dental insurance when I had
>the option of being the dependent spouse on an excellent
>group insurance plan through my ex-husbands employment.
>I'm sure you would agree.


Sure, I agree. I still don't see how that obligates him (or anyone) to keep
you insured after divorce.

>Many women divorcing have a "job" in the workforce, often
>a part-time job which does not offer such benefits as medical/
>dental plans. For some women, part-time work is all they can
>find.

yeah... so?

> I knew one divorced woman who was working 5 part-time
>jobs to make ends meet -- not enough income to pay for private
>medical/dental insurance. Some married women take less demanding
>positions with a lower pay or work only part-time to spend
>more time at home with the children. Didn't you know that?

Sure, I knew that. So what?

>These sacrifices for the family usually reduce a woman's
>ability to be financially self-sufficient, and the effect
>can be long lasting.


And...?

>As for "those dependent spouses" without a job getting a job
>after marital dissolution, are you not aware that we have an
>unemployment problem?

Only too aware. So what?

> If women have been full-time homemakers,
>it is difficult for women to return to the workforce. Skills
>are rusty or undeveloped, senority has been lost and
>opportunities have disappeared. Upon divorce women need
>to be compensated for such.

Perhaps. Using your example of the marital 'traditional' division of
labour... If men have been full-time breadwinners then it is difficult for
them to return to the dating game. Wooing skills are rusty or undeveloped,
if they ever had any. They probably don't know how to cook, or clean, and
will need to learn or re-learn all those skills after their wife abandons
them. They may need to hire cook, cleaners, nannies and prostitutes. Upon
divorce, men need to be compensated for such.

> And Insurance Companies certainly
>should not give divorced women (or men) who were the dependent
>spouse on the Insurance Plan the boot.


Why not? It's their insurance plan, so they make the offers. If you don't
like their offer, don't buy their insurance.

>I find your question offensive, given the numbers of people,
>divorced or otherwise, who cannot find employment or employment
>to adequately support them or them and their children.

I find your answer offensive, given the large numbers of adequately-employed
fathers who are willing and able to support their children - but are
routinely denied the opportunity to do so. Instead, these fathers are
enslaved by the legal system and forced to fund th often-lavish lifestyle of
some indolent sow who sat on her fat ass for ten years doing nothing, and
then whines because her skills are 'rusty' and she can't find a job. Perhaps
she ought to have considered that *before* dumping the old man for an
exciting parade of boyfriends?

> I know
>a married man with an M.A. who has not been able to find
>employment to adequately support he and his family without
>some social assistance. His wife has been at home taking care
>of the children, including a sick baby. As I understand, she
>has now found some part-time work.


Times are tough all over. What the hell do you expect with the absolutely
outrageous levels of productivity lost to governmental controls and
investment scared away by taxes in this country?

>Many single women with children have to stay on welfare
>because they cannot afford to lose the benefits. I know
>of a single woman with health concerns on welfare who
>found a job with pay that she could exist on with the
>exception of paying for needed prescriptions, etc. She
>asked the powers that be if welfare would continue to
>provide the health care benefits if she took the job.
>The powers that be said no, so she could not take the
>job.


Yes, it's ludicrous. If it were private, voluntarily-funded charity, then
the charitable organization could make much more rational choices. Abolish
welfare.

>Why would you ask such a question? I don't know if
>you're a man, but men who've made posts about this
>issue and others concerning divorce, seemingly want
>to punish divorced women.

Oh fergodsake. Nobody wants to punish divorced women. We're just getting a
bit tired of their "...the world (or ex-husband) owes me a living..." whiny
little princess attitude. We're especially tired of the politicians and
legal goofballs swallowing that bullshit and then inflicting it on divorced
husbands. Grow up, girlies.

> A poster called "beergut"
>erroneously automatically assumed that because I am
>divorced (long-term marriage) that I am no longer
>beneficiary of my ex-husbands life insurance. That
>speaks volumes.

Life insurance is an excellent example. Anyone you like can be beneficiary,
and that's because they operate according the the standard business maxim:
the customer is always right.