Bonnie (et al), My comment was said with tongue fully in cheek (note smiley face)--meaning something like exactly what you say below--I don't think that we should care for our citizens by divvying out "benefits" to households, the logic leads to all kinds of absurdities. The retirement worry (which is a real worry for folks who choose not to have children even as they/we contribute to society and the lives of children in other ways) was meant to highlight that point as well. One should not have to have children (or a whole lot of money) in order to make sure that someone is there when one becomes vulnerable and/or infirm due to old age. Apologies for other interpretations abounding... GP --- On Fri, 11/7/08, Bonnie Mann <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: Bonnie Mann <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Kids/Pets > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 6:20 PM > Folks, > > The posts suggesting that folks who don't have kids > should get some equal benefit package as folks who do seem > to me to be based on the same logic that is being > criticized. The history of these "family > benefits" is that the one with the right to the benefit > is the wage earning male (the one who matters to the > society) who can bestow the benefit on his wife and kids by > virtue of their relationship to him, instead of folks > receiving benefits because they are human beings with human > needs. Kids should be insured period, not only if they have > parents with employers who provide benefits, or parents who > can afford insurance...not, that is to say, by virtue of > their relation to a parent at all. To suggest that > one's children receiving what should be a basic human > right somehow needs to be made up for by bestowing an extra > benefit on those who don't have kids is to continue to > see the right to the benefit as accruing to the > "productive" (i.e. worthwhile) adult, rather than > to the ch! > ild. Call me species-ist, but to suggest that middle class > pet owners should get their pet's insurance covered > while thousands of poor children are uninsured, that to do > so would be to somehow equalize a fantasized inequality > between employees with kids and employees without kids, is, > well I don't know what to call it....awful. Sorry for > the tone of this, but as someone who came up out of poverty > to my university job and has multiple nieces and nephews, > not to mention sisters and brothers and cousins, without > insurance, and sees everyday what this means in terms of > their health, I am surprised by the suggestion that a parent > receiving health benefits for their children somehow > constitutes a "privilege" over other folks who > have health insurance for themselves already but no > children. When I was fourteen both of my eardrums burst > from an ear infection because my mother couldn't afford > to take me to the doctor... once my father died and I was no > longer related to a unionized e! > mployee of the Oregon sawmill, I had no separate right to! > health > care and neither did my mother or siblings. Would it have > seemed like a move toward "fairness" if the > university employees in the next town who were without > children got to insure their pets? > > Bonnie Mann