NKU

We've all had a chance to see the good news from NKU by now and below is a nice editorial from The Enquirer. I've seen at least one e-mail from a fairness supporter that questioned the goodness associated with NKU's actions. No, NKU's plan does not use any state appropriated funds, but rather it simply makes an opportunity available for individuals to take out such plans on their own dime. The individual pointed out that a quick check of Humana's site shows that someone can "sign up for insurance for a comparable amount without going through their NKU partner." So, the individual asked what benefit is this recent action? I tend to disagree and see it in a way similar to this editorial below. What do you think? Is making the option available through one's employer not the smart and progress way to go even if it is at the employee's expense?

~Jody


NKU offering the right benefits option
Editorial - The Enquirer

We applaud the decision of the Northern Kentucky University regents to offer health-care benefits to domestic partners as a practical, humane and economically viable approach to the reality of employment relations.

The proposal, approved Monday, will allow employees to add family members or others to their health plan even when a spouse is not covered. Those covered would have to live in the employee's household for at least a year and be "financially interdependent" with the employee. The cost of the extra covered person would be paid by the employee, not the university.

This plan takes into account non-traditional family groups that are common in today's society. The plan could cover a sibling or an adult child. Obviously, family groups also include same-sex couples, which prompt negative reactions in some quarters, including from some members of the state legislature. State Sen. Damon Thayer, R-Georgetown, supported an unsuccessful bill this year that would have banned state universities from offering benefits to same-sex partners.

But the regents are not supporting any particular lifestyle with this action. They simply recognize such benefit packages as a necessary in the competitive environment for top-notch faculty. The University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville already offer such plans. The University of Cincinnati adopted a similar plan last year.

Enabling employees to provide for the health coverage of all members of their "family" group is a humane approach to benefits coverage. Why should an employee not be allowed to provide coverage for a financial dependent, especially when the cost of the extended coverage is being paid by the employee, not the taxpayers? Worrying about how a family is constituted should not be the concern of the university or the state.