Awesome! Woot! Federal law WORKING: State Law cannot be enforced

[darin]

Awesome! Look - if people want 'equal' benefits for their gay partners, then ANYBODY with ANY partner should have benefits. It's an example of a slippery-slope in action.

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Washington's state law that bars discrimination can't be enforced on the basis of sexual orientation and gender against some private employers' health benefit plans because it conflicts with federal law, state officials said Friday.

Marc Brenman, director of the state Human Rights Commission, said officials investigating a discrimination complaint found the state law doesn't apply to certain providers of health insurance under the 1974 federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA.

<snip>

Soon after the law took effect, Washingtonians began filing complaints with the Human Rights Commission, which has authority to enforce the state's civil rights protections.

One complaint stood out. It was filed by Sandi Scott-Moore, a Redmond-based employee of manufacturer Honeywell International, who claimed health insurance coverage for her male partner was unfairly denied because the unmarried couple were not of the same gender.

During their investigation, the Human Rights Commission's staff found they had no jurisdiction because of the ERISA conflict.

Read the rest:

http://www.komotv.com/news/6021716.html

[Mr. P]

1. An employer has no obligation to even offer insurance.
2, If folks keep pressing, my guess no employer will offer insurance.

[Dilloduck]

1. An employer has no obligation to even offer insurance.
2, If folks keep pressing, my guess no employer will offer insurance.

If you are a "valued" member of society maybe you'll qualify for better health care--if you're not you'll get the socialized crap that's on the way.

[Merlin]

1. An employer has no obligation to even offer insurance.
2, If folks keep pressing, my guess no employer will offer insurance.

Wrong on both counts Mr. P. I'm not sure of the numbers now of how many employees a company has to have before they offer health insurance, (used to be 100 a few years ago, someone told me it is 15 now but those are not my numbers) but when they reach that amount of employees they have to by federal law offer health insurance. There can be a 90 day period they can make a new employee wait, and the employee doesn't have to take it, but it has to be offered. The employee can't be discriminated against for pre existing conditions. If an employee changes jobs and insurance is offered, pre existing conditions don't count unless the employee waits 6 months to sign up.

[Mr. P]

Wrong on both counts Mr. P. I'm not sure of the numbers now of how many employees a company has to have before they offer health insurance, (used to be 100 a few years ago, someone told me it is 15 now but those are not my numbers) but when they reach that amount of employees they have to by federal law offer health insurance. There can be a 90 day period they can make a new employee wait, and the employee doesn't have to take it, but it has to be offered. The employee can't be discriminated against for pre existing conditions. If an employee changes jobs and insurance is offered, pre existing conditions don't count unless the employee waits 6 months to sign up.

Hard to believe that merlin, I'll look back into it. If true all a company would have to do is contract employees. Does anyone really wonder why so many companies are moving or outsourcing?