ugh (words fail me)

Even as a pet lover, I am appalled. I can only assume that the pet insurance carrier offered the college some sort of incentive to distribute the literature and the college is not contributing to this, but their timing just could not be worse. It may not be intended as salt in the wound but it has exactly that effect and that effect only.

Recovering Academic, at 7:55 am EST on November 26, 2007

Recovering, Just to put things in perspective: pet health insurance is not treated, as a legal matter, as health insurance. It is considered a form of property/casualty insurance. It is not governed by ERISA. Generally most plans cost about 20-30 per month (per pet). So, 5% is, at best some kind of promotion.

Larry, at 8:45 am EST on November 26, 2007

The college’s excuse that “it was unfair to compare the benefits offered and denied, because they are categorized in different ways, and that the pet benefit did not require board approval” does not work for me. Granted, the pet insurance is easier to offer since it does not require board approval, and undoubtedly costs the college nothing, but it is the timing of this that stings.

Could they not have waited to offer this benefit until they were offering health insurance benefits to domestic partners? How many of their employees were suffering from not having a 5% discount on pet insurance, which generally costs a less than $50 a month? How many would have even fathomed the idea of the college providing a pet insurance benefit, anyway?

BMA, at 11:10 am EST on November 26, 2007

Benefits for Pet, Not Partners

Finally! It is great to see institutions recognizing the tremendous importance of pets to civilization. For many of us, our pets are our families. Having lost my spouse recently, I can attest to the fact that my dog has sustained my existence. Without my beloved dog, I might not have made it! Let us remember that a society can be judged on the way it treats its animals and children — the most vulnerable components of our culture.

Kimberly, at 11:10 am EST on November 26, 2007

Larry, the first paragraph of the article points out that the domestic partner issue also wouldn’t have cost the school any money because the school only contributes to insurance for employees. Given that neither one costs the institution anything, I think the comparison is appropriate.

Becky, at 1:45 pm EST on November 26, 2007

Insurance for pets

What I want to know is, what if the pet is gay? If my dog has a same-sex domestic partner, is he still covered? What if her domestic partner is the opposite sex but a different species, like a cat? What then?

Only in America can crap like this go on. When there is so much waste and wealth that some pet owners buy diamond-studded collars for their pets, at a price that would keep some third-world families in food for a few years, you know we have a values problem here.

Now we have this — valuing animals above humans. Anyone surprised? Not me.

Manny, at 5:35 pm EST on November 26, 2007

“ATTORNEY’S START YOUR ENGINES!”

Don’t bother. You may not like the decision, but there is no cause of action here.

JBM, at 5:40 pm EST on November 26, 2007

Actions are louder than words

In an era when convicted felons are allowed in the US forces but gays are thrown out, we now know that our canine and feline friends count more that we do, us, the gay and lesbians of this world.We won’t always be at the back of the bus and we shall overcome, some day. Progress goes on, old bigots die. I hope they will be reincarnated into Agnostic Black Lesbians. These do not preach about God but they do her work. Bless them all.

Fabien, at 10:25 am EST on November 28, 2007