🚀 go-pugleaf

Here we go again...Look...I have nothing against you Barbara...and I have
never participated in any of the posts regarding you, but
please...please...please learn how to use the USENET News groups.  Here
again, just like when you took over John Gray's "Gasoline Price Rant", you
have hijacked the "Barbara is Gone" thread.  Please...if you want to post a
new topic use the function in your News reader that provides that function,
instead of posting on somebody else's thread.

If you don't know how to do that, call the technical support for DBIS
Internet Services, whom I assume you have received your new account through.

Thanks in advance

A lurker...

Barbara Amero wrote in message <34CDF7E7.4DF9@dbis.ns.ca>...
>Little TiMMy wrote:
>
>Barbara Amero wrote:
>> >Which point of view did you not agree with?
>[snip]
>> > Did you not agree with my point of view
>> > that after divorce private medical/dental
>> >Insurance Plans should continue to cover the
>> >person who was the dependent spouse?
>
>> and why should dental and medical plans have to cover
>> people who's spuse devorced them?
>
>It's got nothing to do with who filed for divorce.
>They don't cover people (dependent spouse) who divorced
>their spouse, nor if the divorce was mutual. They do,
>however, continue to cover the separated spouse who
>is listed as the dependent spouse.
>
>Note: Here dependent spouse means the spouse listed
>as the dependent spouse on the Ins. Plan. Such does
>necessarily mean that the dependent spouse was not
>employed. Nor does it mean that the dependent spouse
>did not work -- being a homemaker is work. The so-
>called "bread winner" does not do his/her job
>independent of his/her spouse.
>
>For e.g. during my 22 1/2 year marriage I worked in
>the home as a homemaker and otherwise worked in and
>out of the home. When my husband and I married he was
>an unemployed student (during the academic year) and
>I was working in the work force. After the birth of our
>first child, I chose not to return to my full time job.
>For a short time, I worked in the home providing child
>care to another woman's child and in the home of another
>woman across the street. And for a year, my husband and
>I were Superintendents of 3 low-rise apt. buildings - one
>of which we lived in rent free (that plus $50, I think,
>was our pay). I did most of the work, since he was at
>the university much of the time. The most unpleasant,
>dangerous work, however, was assumed by him, i.e.
>burning the garbage in the incinerator in the basement.
>One day an aerosol can exploded in his face. Fortunately,
>he was not injured. On second thought, tho' that was the
>most dangerous part of the job, it may not have been the
>most unpleasant, since I was the one left to deal with
>the cheap, negligent, rude, horrible owners. Generally,
>I scrubed the floors and stairs of the 3 low-rise apt.
>bldgs.(3 story, plus basement), but he also at times
>assumed this responsibility. Snow removal was also his
>responsibility, a job which another student often did
>(paid by us) due to my husband's time commitment at the
>univeristy. After that I also worked part-time in the work
>force (banks, supermarkets, hospital, medi-center, etc.)
>as well as some self-employed work, including owning and
>operating a business (from a winterized 2-car garage on
>the property) during the latter years of the marriage.
>And, of course, continued to _work_ in the home as a
>homemaker (yes that's work), wife (yes that's work),
>mother (yes that's work). That's quite a few jobs to do
>all at the same time.
>
>My health care needs and potential future health care needs
>(as people age they tend to require more health care) were
>taken care of and to be taken care of through an excellent
>Medical/Dental Ins. Plan at my husbands place of employment.
>Generally, this is the arrangement in marriages, i.e. the
>spouse who is the primary earner has the Medical/Dental Plan
>through his/her employment which covers the so-called dependent
>spouse. And like many other women, I did not think that I would
>divorce and therefore thought that I had been responsible, had
>taken care of my present and future Medical/Dental health care
>needs.
>
>NOTE: This Medical/Dental Ins. coverage was not a "hand-out"
>for/to me as the fellas in here seem to think of such things,
>since I also _worked_ (gawd dang hard!) for the Medical/Dental
>Ins. coverage as wife, mother, homemaker as well as the other
>work mentioned.
>
>Again, I thought that I was being responsible IRT taking
>care of my present/future medical/dental care needs,
>starting when I was young, i.e. paying for, insuring such
>protection should I need it in the present or future. And
>other than dental care, I made very few claims on this
>insurance until my mid-40s. I'm not a pill-popper so there
>was few claims for drugs. Did not often require anti-biotics.
>In fact, I refused drugs during the 7 years I suffered with
>migraine headaches (my body's response to the stress of a
>newborn baby/death of a close childhood friend/move, etc.)
>and instead tried bio-feedback and eventually a lifestyle
>change which miraculously cured the migraine headaches.
>Once one's body responds to stress in a certain way, it tends
>to respond as such again in times of stress. If I'd known that
>the Ins. covered 12 massage therapy sessions per year, I would
>have taken advantage of that! My point is that I was not much
>of a liability for the Ins. Co. Certainly, if such Ins. had not
>been available through my husband's employment, we would have
>acquired such insurance elsewhere.
>
>Again, it was not until my mid-40s that I found myself
>in need of making significant claims on this Insurance.
>Such was not a problem after my husband and I separated
>because the so-called dependent spouse is still covered.
>My husband and I did not divorce for some years after the
>separation. Then, a few months before the divorce was
>granted, I was presented with an estimate of $21,000 for
>dental care, some of which was covered by the Medical/Dental
>Insurance Plan that was giving me the boot. The day I was
>presented with that estimate via snail mail, I was on my
>way to meet a friend to purchase a new computer or to
>look at computers with the intention of purchasing such.
>We met, looked at the computers, I babbled (as the fellas
>in here call it) on the way home, and cheerfully (yes, fellas,
>I can be cheerful) made him (yes him) a nice dinner. No doubt
>I was in a state of shock.
>
>I should also note that 3 years after separation, I found
>myself on welfare for 2 1/2 years, as many women do. Without
>that private Medical/Dental Ins., the tax payers would have
>been paying for claims I made to that Ins. Plan to cover
>such costs. If I had been divorced at the time, the tax payers
>would have been paying for such, when tax payers should not
>have to pay for such. Now the Ins. Co. that covered me for
>more than 20 years will not be paying for such. Note: My
>ex-husband was prepared to pay an additional amount to ensure
>continued coverage for me on that Ins.Plan, but the Ins. Co.
>refused to accept that offer. When I called that Ins.Co. to
>see if they could offer me a Plan that I could afford, they
>could not. And a man flippantly said that Ins. Co's. expect
>people to take care of such needs when they are young and
>purchase Insurance, not wait until they are aging or old
>with health concerns and then try to purchase Insurance.
>I said, I DID!
>
>Does that answer your question IRT why medical/dental
>plans should continue to cover the so-called dependent
>spouse after divorce, as they do during the marriage
>and after separation?
>
>Barbara A. Amero