"Not all good news. We voted to give chickens rights and take human rights." The LA Times featured what I think is a disgusting photo that I won't even post here because it angers me. Along with this choice quote:

"I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married. And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said.

I feel sad for California but at least 63% of voters aged 18-29 voted against it. Hopefully soon the mainstream definition of family will be expanded. And maybe that's the problem. If we want to worry about "the children" maybe we should worry about teaching them how to imbalanced-ly value a chicken's life over a human being's.

I can't help but wonder if all these issues: gay marriage; the stay-at-home/stay-at-work debate; the tortures behind the decision to have children at all and trying to combine/reconcile those decisions with career paths and/or societal perception; inflexibility of the workplace--originate from a singular core issue: that the current definition of family is outdated.

Perhaps the core issue here is that the current medicalized definition of family is too limited to realistically deal with the wide array of issues individuals face on a daily basis.

For instance in insurance concerns, instead of simply allowing children to be covered by someone's health plan because they’re automatically dependents, why not expand the choice an individual has in regards to the people in their life they’d like to cover with their insurance benefits?

Similarly, how sad is it that there are numerous childless/CFBC scholars in institutions across the country—and from what I understand, most institutions offer tuition remission for faculty's (and sometimes even staff's) children—but if a person is childfree (by choice or not), why aren’t they allowed to sponsor a child in their life with the tuition remission? My husband and I may not have children of our own, but wouldn’t it be great if I could guarantee that my nieces or nephews would have free tuition if they wanted it? Or what about sponsoring kids in the neighboring communities of the local college?

I just think the current definition of family is way too narrow to ever truly be fair—except to the people who are making money off of the narrow definition. Think about it: the current definition is an inherently survivalist/selfish one. Every family should be out for themselves instead of creating communities that mutually benefit one another.

And in light of our new President-Elect and the idea of bringing communities back together--and it wasn't just a platform, the man's campaign actually practiced what it preached.

I mean, look at the bickering even this simple post created. (My comment is at the end of it, and it's almost the same as this particular post.) But the resentment that builds between people over the decision to have children (or not to have children) is shameful. That’s a product of an inherently narrow definition of family. If it was more inclusive, then I wonder if bitterness on both sides would start to fade away and communities could be created instead.

And I wonder if we expanded the definition of family, if civil rights would grow out of that new definition.

Labels: gay marriage, narrow definition of family, politics

( 4comments )

at November 5, 2008 7:53 PM  natalia said...

I love the idea of sponsoring a student in the neighborhood. Wow. I wish universities would give their profs that option.

But really... it's all about making money, which is why universities would rather take away tuition remission for professor's children before they allow people to sponsor people who might actually need the money.

 

at November 7, 2008 7:06 PM  Lorie said...

I thought I already left this comment, but maybe I got distracted and never clicked "Say It!" before I closed the window. My apologies if two copies appear after a delay or moderation or something.

I saw this comic on Proposition 8 and thought you might enjoy it.

 

at November 7, 2008 8:48 PM  JillyDreadful said...

That was fucking amazing. Thank you so much for that.

 

at November 13, 2008 4:29 PM  natalia said...

No Scream Awards post? MISS YOU!!!!!!

 

I would just like to tell you all that I am thankful to be alive at this moment, and that I am proud of my fellow human beings. Perhaps my Grinch's heart is growing three sizes this day, but I feel as though I have undergone a profound change. The air is already a little lighter. And even though it's 1:19 in the morning, the sky is a little bit brighter.

Happy President-Elect Obama Day!

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="338" caption="Alex Ross Obama Comic-Con 2008 Shirt -- I bought it for B to wear on Election Day."][/caption]

Labels: barack obama, election, hope, politics, president-elect

( 0comments )

Labels: elizabeth dole is a bee-yotch, news, politics

( 0comments )

I am getting ready to leave for Chicago for a conference where I'm talking about Chobits. I had to deal with my absentee ballot stuff and although I'm not in California and I'm not seeing the Prop 8 commercials, B has shown me a few and if there's something I'm so sick of voting on it's parental notification of underage abortion and gay marriage. I vote the same way every time (no on notification, yes on gay marriage).

Here's a clip that my favorite blog fourfour put up on his page:



If you think about it, based on the Bible's definition, my marriage to Brad is an abomination. We are not nation-building. We have sex for sex's sake. Not for procreation. (My marriage is an abomination... huh. That's kind of cool, now that I have thought about it.)

I have issues with marriage in general--is it weird for someone who is "happily married" to still not believe in the institution? Oh well, I'll take it: I'm weird. And probably a hypocrite. And at the risk of sounding even more like a hypocrite: even though I don't really believe in marriage, I'm really tired of the government trying to regulate our bodies and families.

Even though I'm really against people getting married for stupid reasons (i.e. Sarah Palin's pregnant, teenage daughter--I have don't have a problem that the teenager is keeping the baby, I have a problem that the issue is moot simply because she and her teenage boyfriend are going to get married! Wow! Problem solved!), or people getting married who shouldn't really be married (like my mom--she's wasn't emotionally healthy and married my loser ex-step-father as a way to not be lonely).

So even though these people are getting married for horrible reasons, I'm not about to take those mistakes away from them! Let them learn!

But what about gay marriage? Well, if homosexual couples want to get married, who I am to stop that?

I'm annoyed and out-raged when people try to take rights away from one another. Let them all learn!

And every once in a while, when people are given the freedom, a cool definition of marriage arises, like an abominable one: I wouldn't have gotten married if it wasn't to B. He's the only person I've ever trusted enough to make marriage different: 8 years together, no kids, and I'm living away for a year to pursue a career opportunity--that's a very cool, and a very different definition of marriage.

Oh, and the parental notification crap? Yeah... the government cannot force familial communication. If they can't force communication about drugs, they ain't gonna be successful with abortion.

...in 2006 there was a spike in teenage pregnancies for the first time in, like, 20 years. This current economic crisis we're in the midst of is not a sudden disaster. It's been a slow, rolling boil for a long time coming. When parents cannot be parents due to working 50-80 work weeks, things like teen pregnancy and drug use are inevitably going to rise.

Instead of trying to violate peoples' bodies and homes, maybe the government should spend money on comprehensive education and mass public transportation programs that benefit all economic areas of society, including the poor areas like where I came from. I lived so far away from anything remotely considered a town that the only things to do where I lived were smoke pot and fuck. I'm not saying public transportation is the answer to all life's needs, but, I don't know... maybe it'd give people something else to do. Yeah, we need a bullet train! From Northern California to Southern California. That'd be awesome...

Okay, back to packing. A Scream Awards post is in the works... but I'm finalizing my conference paper and my presentation is on Friday, after that I'll be free.

Labels: against, politics, prop 4, prop 8, voting

( 0comments )

So apparently, while I was without Internet, McCain did this sleazy ad:



And then Paris Hilton responded:

See Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad and more funny videos on FunnyOrDie.com

Am I totally nuts or was Paris's ad kinda funny and cool?

I hate that.

Damn it. She's becoming relevant in pop culture again. Thanks a lot McCain.

Ass.

Labels: britney spears, mccain, news, obama, paris hilton, politics, pop culture, sleazy ad campaign

( 1comments )

at August 6, 2008 6:13 PM  natalia said...

I agree. Paris's ad was actually funny. What was McCain thinking? His ad didn't make any sense. Why is Obama a "celebrity"? Don't the Republicans consider the "celebrity" ol' Ronald Regan to be one of their best presidents ever? Ummmm... seems a little shady to me.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to complain about the passport application process in the United States.

My husband and I are planning a trip to the UK (for which I prefer not to simply say England when I don’t mean only England). We were planning on going in May or June, but when a literature class that I was actually excited about taking was offered, we decided that we could go after the class ended, and travel in July instead. Even though I am on the Creative Writing track of the Ph.D. program, my literary side is a total Victorianist at heart. And this particular class has been the first Victorian class offered in the last two years. Although, I suppose this a minor exaggeration. There was one class was offered this past term, but it was taught by a professor who treated me poorly when I first came to USC. The strange thing is: I have heard really good things about this person, but I have never taken a class with this professor, so she didn't even know me enough to treat me like trash, but she did it anyway. I got the distinct impression that she didn't like the creative writing people, and I didn't feel like enduring the harshness for another semester. I've had enough personality conflicts dealing with professors in the English department.

And so that is why I am taking a Victorian literature class in the summer, because I have heard great things about this professor, too, and I actually love the subject--two things that rarely get paired up for me outside of fiction or poetry workshops.

So we were going to go to the UK in July, but then Comic-Con is at the end of July and I've been wanting to go for three years (well, more than that, but it wasn't really feasible when we lived in Maryland). And now, we have friends visiting both at the beginning and end of July. Now, we have decided to postpone our trip until December--when airline prices and hotel prices are somewhat cheaper, and we can save a little bit more.

It's a good thing we decided to go in December, and not June. Because we applied for our passports March 15, 2007. And we still don't have them.

At the beginning of the year, the website said 4-6 weeks for processing. Then on March 1, 2007, they updated the website to say 6-8 weeks. Two weeks ago, the website was updated again to say 10 weeks for processing. Today, I checked again: 10-12 weeks for processing. By their current time line, we should be receiving our passports on Thursday, because that will have been 12 weeks.

The biggest sham of all, though, is that you can "check the status of your application" online. But you have to wait four weeks before submitting your information: "Currently, it is taking up to 1 week for Expedited Applications and up to 4 weeks for Routine Applications to be tracked online. Please allow at least that time before checking the status of your application." I have attempted to check the status three times: April 15th, May 3rd, May 17th, and I kept getting told that my information wasn't even available to check on yet. Today, I input my information and this is what it says:

Thank you for submitting your passport application! It is currently being processed.

Your passport application locator number is --------.

Note: We have been experiencing a problem with the online status check system affecting only the application locator number. This does not affect the processing of your application. If the number above is 10 digits long and starts with 10000, please do not worry. If you need to contact the National Passport Information Center, you will have to provide at least your name and date of birth instead of the application locator number. Otherwise, please provide the locator number above.

When you applied, you requested Routine Service and Routine Delivery of your passport. Passport Agencies use Priority Mail.

You should receive your passport within 10 weeks from the date you applied. However, if you are traveling within 2 weeks and have not received your passport, please contact the National Passport Information Center.

There is no real update on the status. In fact, there is a big fat red herring: "You should receive your passport within 10 weeks from the date you applied." I suppose the word should is their Get Out of Updating Free Card. Because we should have received our passports, but we haven't.

All I have to say is thank goodness the Victorian class was offered and postponed our plan, because I would be really angry. But right now, I'm just mildly annoyed.

Labels: government, grad school, passport, politics, travel

( 0comments )

I have nothing of interest or value to say. Not really. But I feel the need to make my first post on Wordpress. In real life news, I dropped the Television Theory class I was taking because I felt it was beneath me. It felt good to realize this. It felt better taking the initiative and dropping it. I have sort of been basking in the assertive glory that came with actively dropping the class for a reason other than the class meeting time changing. Plus, since it's summer and classes meet twice a week for four hours, I had already spent 12 hours with people I didn't really care about and wasn't really learning from--not the way I am/always do learn(ing) from my classmates in my Victorian class. In the Creative Writing track, I am only allowed to take two classes outside the English Dept (stupid). I took a Feminist Theory class last semester, which was offered by the Gender Studies Dept, but was taught by a professor in the English Dept, but it still counts as a course outside the department, and so, counts as one of my two classes (even stupider). I so did not want to waste my last chance to take a class outside the department with a Television Theory class I didn't enjoy and wasn't learning anything from. I gave the class 12 hours (not to mention all the hours of outside reading), so I think that was more than enough. I'm going to keep the course books, though, because they were reasonably priced and I think the reading will be useful as a source if I pursue television as an angle in my dissertation.

Speaking of beneath me... I feel sad about Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. I saw it today and I have one giant complaint: if I wanted political commentary, I would watch The Daily Show, not Pirates of the Caribbean.

I have a few personal, political beefs with the film. The sad thing is, though, I agree with everything that the movie is trying to beat into our heads (civil rights: good, giant-monopoly-companies: baaaaad). But somehow I resent the fact that these ideologies are being force fed to me through my favorite form: pirates (vampires and zombies being a close second and third--although I will maintain that zombies are a more ready vehicle for political commentary than pirates).

Pirate Perturbance No. 1: How about the fact that the only black female character was incarcerated and bound, and then when she went all godlike on everyone, all she did was grow really tall and erupt in a pile of crabs. Needless to say, her goddess powers were pretty under utilized. I felt like Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons: Worst use of a goddess: ever. And I don't consider this a spoiler, considering that knowing this does not somehow ruin the entire movie.

But I'm going to give more of an opinion, with definite spoilers here... Probably. Basically, I want to talk about different aspects of the movie, but if you don't want to know anything, then stop here.

Pirate Perturbance No. 2: The movie just felt heavy handed as a whole, beginning with the beginning. Can anyone else say Liberal Agenda? Now, I am a liberal myself, but the blatantness of the propaganda felt cheap. I mean, this is just supposed to be a good, fun, popcorn, swashbuckling, I-Turn-This-On-While-Cleaning-My-Apartment/Sleeping/Doing-Homework movie. If I want political commentary, I don't watch Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl or Dead Man's Chest (that's what Jon Stewart, moon goddess, is for). But the marching of the prisoners whose civil rights were being expunged was just... bleh. Especially the supposed lack of sympathy for the child associated with pirates being hung alongside the adults, and, as the prisoners' trap doors open, One Piece of the Nine Pieces of Eight (convoluted, no?) falls to the floor. The title then fades onto the screen: At World's End. The death symbolism was so not subtle that I actually giggled to myself. And no, not because a child got hung. Geez.

Pirate Perturbance No. 3: When Beckett (the guy who is evil for the sake of being evil, the guy who works for the East India Trading Company) finally bites it, his body (I assume that we're supposed to assume it's his body anyway) falls onto the company's flag, on top of it's symbol, into the water. The symbol happens to resemble a broken cross. Beckett's body happens to resemble a crucified-type pose. Beckett's last words? "It's nothing personal. It's just good business." Ka-BOOM! The last image we are left with of the East India Trading Company/Evil Empire is the ship, conveniently named Endeavor, completely decimated. I found it highly entertaining the the East India Trading Company was painted in such a harsh light. I find it even more entertaining that the message here is that: HUGE corporations are a bad thing. This message brought to you by Disney.

Pirate Perturbance No. 4: It's kind of cool that prim and proper Elizabeth Swan, with a fetish for pirates, becomes not only a captain, but Pirate King. But after she's elected King, a couple heavy handed things happen. 1) She's an elected king. Sure, there is, perhaps, comedic value in the contradiction (haha! isn't it funny that pirates are stoopid?) but 2) After she becomes King, she declares war. By herself. Without a group vote. Without the support of the, well, for lack of a better word, the U.N. of pirates. I could go on and on about the allusions to systems of voting as arbitrary, leaders/dictators, etc. But I think you get the idea.

Pirate Perturbance No. 5: Happy family ending. It's okay that Will is bound to the Flying Dutchman for all eternity because at least he had son! Just more of the pro-natalist narrative around which our current society gravitates.

I'm sure there's more. But now I am sleepy.

Labels: grad school, movies, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, political commentary, politics, real life

( 4comments )

at June 2, 2007 7:48 PM  Lorie said...

"It’s okay that Will is bound to the Flying Dutchman for all eternity because at least he had son!"

Wait...I feel like I missed something. Did the movie say that she was pregnant (which I completely didn't notice), or are you just saying that since they had sex, she'll possibly get pregnant?

 

at June 3, 2007 12:14 PM  jillydreadful said...

Did you stay until after the credits rolled? Because the after they did, they had a short scene in which the tag line appeared, "Ten years later," and Elizabeth Swan and a boy--approximately 10 years old--came walking towards the cliff and Will on the Dutchman was making its way towards shore.

Which leads me to another question? Did Will have to be the captain of the Dutchman for eternity or was his obliged to only give ten years since doing it saved his life? I was a little fuzzy on this.

 

at June 8, 2007 9:38 AM  jezebelsriot said...

Okay Okay, I agree with most of what you're saying, even though it pains me! It pains me! I really love the series, so in the tradition of ignorance is bliss, I must suspend not only my disbelief but also my intellect so that I may continue loving this trilogy. Yes, even the third one.

I did not stay for after the credits!!!!! I had no idea. But I am going to assume that since, as a generalized audience, we demand at least semi-happy endings, Will was probably bound for ten years....but who would be his replacement?

You so know a fourth will be coming eventually.

 

at June 8, 2007 1:08 PM  jillydreadful said...

Oh, yes. I expect a fourth movie at some point. I hope it's a Barbossa movie, though. Geoffrey Rush was so hot as Barbossa. I could stand for a Jack Sparrow movie too, because it goes without saying that Johnny Depp is hot. But I'd rather Will and Elizabeth stay out of any forthcoming sequels. Unless it's a movie about Will ferrying dead souls. Because that could be awesome... I guess what I'm trying to say is that the romance part of the movie was not my favorite (it worked in the first one, but not really in the others), and I'd rather see other characters take the forefront.

But even with all my personal beefs with the film, it doesn't mean I didn't like it. I still liked it. I just didn't like it AS much as Dead Man's Chest, and I certainly didn't like it as much as Curse of the Black Pearl. But I still liked it.

I totally want Elizabeth's outfit when she became Captain of Chow Yon Fat's ship.

 

I don't know how I really feel about the death penalty just yet. Sometimes I feel like some criminals (purposeful murderers) should be executed--and it makes me kind of sick to think that a man who chopped off his victim's arms could complain that lethal injection is too inhumane. But mostly, I think I feel that no one should executed--I know it's more a drain on taxpayers to keep these violent people in prison, but why would we want to stoop to an evil person's level?

However, I am not quite comfortable with this position either, because I tend to empathize quite closely to Polly Klass's family, being around the same age and living in California when she was kidnapped and murdered, and I can understand how it feels to be relieved when the evil person is dead (her murderer was executed when I was teenager--I have tried very hard to purposefully forget that man's name because the thought of him and the thought of people like him out in the world used to scare me in only the way it can scare a ten-year-old, when ten-year-olds create their own peculiar logic, so I refuse to Google his name and memorialize him in any sort of way).

So Saddam was executed today. He was hanged, Old West style. This was another very evil man, but for some reason, it bothers me that he was hanged. He probably deserved it, but does any human being, when delivered justice, deserve the same kind of pain and torture that he doled out?

I still don't know what the answer to that is.

Labels: death penalty, news, politics

( 1comments )

at January 7, 2007 10:53 PM  Anonymous said...

I'm having a tough issue with this too. I don't feel like this should be celebrated, or that retired military men should be hosting kegger parties in honor of a US job well done. Saddam was so quirky, so crazy, so paranoid and diabolical, it was hard not to sympathize with him like he was Gargamel and Iraq was his Smurfs. I know I shouldn't be sympathizing with a tyrant, a sadistic despot that rellished suffering, demanded total obedience from his followers, but the problem is, seeing the man stripped from his power made him so pathetic, made him human and not an unfeeling monster that deserves to have his neck snapped by a shoddy rope while his religious enemies rejoice around him. Makes me feel like we're the tyrants.

 

WASHINGTON - About half of all U.S. women who had abortions in 2002 had undergone at least one previous abortion, according to a study released Tuesday.

Women who had repeat abortions tended to be over age 30 and to have more children, and most were using contraception at the time, the report from the nonprofit Alan Guttmacher Institute found.

***

Most of the women seeking abortions were poor or low-income, and 60 percent had at least one child already

The study also found that one in three U.S. women have given birth to a baby they had not planned for, and one in 10 have had more than one unintended birth.

***

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about half of the approximately 5.4 million pregnancies in the United States each year are unintended. More than 4.1 million babies are born in the United States each year.

The CDC has also found that 98 percent of women of reproductive age have used one or more contraceptive methods and 73 percent of women aged 15 to 44 years visited a doctor or clinic for family planning services in 2002.

Globally, 46 million women have abortions each year, with the highest rates in Romania, Cuba and Vietnam and the lowest rates in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland.

Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. --Click here for full article from MSNBC

It just so happens that the countries with the lowest abortion rates also have the some of the best maternity benefits in the industrialized world. All following information is from Social Security Programs Throughout the World by the SSA

Sickness and Maternity Regulatory Framework for Belgium

Exchange rate: US$1.00 equals 0.80 euros (€).

Sickness and Maternity
Regulatory Framework

First law: 1894 (mutual benefit societies).

Current law: 1994.

Type of program: Social insurance system.
Coverage

The employee must be a member of a mutual benefit society or the public auxiliary fund.

Pensioners and other social security beneficiaries are covered for medical benefits.

Voluntary affiliation is possible for persons not covered under compulsory coverage.

Special systems operate for self-employed persons (health care only) and seamen.
Source of Funds

Insured person: 3.55% of earnings (medical benefits) and 1.15% of earnings (cash benefits and disability pensions). Pensioners contribute 3.55% of the old-age or survivor pension (low-income pensioners are exempt from contributions).

Employer: 3.8% of payroll (medical benefits), 2.2% of payroll (cash benefits and disability pensions), and 0.15% (maternity benefits).

Government: Subsidy for the management of the social security system. Proceeds from a surcharge on automobile insurance and on hospitalization insurance premiums and a tax on the profit made on reimbursable drugs.
Qualifying Conditions

Sickness and medical benefits: Six months of insurance, including 120 days of actual or credited work.

Maternity benefits: Six months of insurance preceding the expected date of childbirth.
Sickness and Maternity Benefits

Cash sickness benefit: 60% of earnings, subject to a ceiling. After the 31st day of incapacity, the entitlement is 55%; 60% if there are dependents or if the insured is the sole breadwinner. In general, benefits are not payable if the employer provides a guaranteed salary.

The ceiling applied to the basis salary (earnings) is €101.21 a day.

Cash maternity benefit: The benefit is payable for a maximum of 15 weeks (17 weeks in the case of multiple births), including a maximum of 7 weeks (9 weeks in the case of multiple births) before the expected date of childbirth (of which at least 1 week is compulsory) and a minimum of 8 weeks after childbirth. During the first 30 days, the maternity benefit for active workers is 82% of the basis salary (no ceiling); for the unemployed or other eligible persons, 79.5% of the basis salary (subject to a ceiling). The benefit from the 31st day to the end of the 15th week (17th week in the case of multiple births) is 75% of the basis salary (subject to a ceiling) for all types of eligible persons.

The ceiling applied to the basis salary (earnings) is €101.21 a day.
Workers' Medical Benefits

The benefits provided include general and specialist care, surgery, hospitalization, medicines, laboratory services, maternity care, dental care, nursing, rehabilitation, transportation, and appliances.

The insured person pays varying copayments depending on income and status.

There is no limit to duration.
Dependents' Medical Benefits

The benefits provided include general and specialist care, surgery, hospitalization, medicines, laboratory services, maternity care, dental care, nursing, rehabilitation, transportation, and appliances.

The insured person pays varying copayments depending on income and status.

There is no limit to duration.
Administrative Organization

Ministry of Social Affairs, Public Health, and the Environment provides general supervision.

National Social Security Office collects contributions.

National Sickness and Invalidity Insurance Institute coordinates the program together with various management committees for cash and medical benefits.

Local agencies pay benefits, including about 78 approved mutual benefit societies, federated into five national unions, and a separate fund for railway employees. District offices of the public auxiliary fund pay benefits for persons not belonging to a mutual society.

Netherlands

Exchange rate: US$1.00 equals 0.80 euros (€).

Sickness and Maternity
Regulatory Framework

First law: 1931.

Current laws: 1964 (medical benefits); 1966 (cash sickness and maternity benefits for wage earners and salaried persons); 1968 (exceptional medical expenses compensation); and 1998 (cash maternity benefits for unemployed workers), implemented in 2001.

Type of program: Social insurance system.
Coverage

Cash benefits: Employees who have lost their jobs in the first 2 years of sickness, sick unemployed persons, temporary workers on sick leave without a permanent contract, the voluntarily insured, apprentices, organ donors, vocationally rehabilitated persons as defined in the Disability Reintegration Act, and women whose sickness is caused by pregnancy or childbirth.

Beginning in March 1996, coverage under the Sickness Benefits Act is mostly privatized. Under the civil code, employers must continue to pay 70% of wages (up to a maximum of €167.70 a day) during an employee's absence due to sickness for a maximum of 104 weeks; may be extended to 156 weeks. Employers may deduct the amount of the benefit from the weekly salary.

Medical benefits: Wage earners and salaried employees earning less than €32,600 a year and pensioners. Subject to certain conditions, coverage is extended to a partner and children.

Exceptional medical expenses: All residents.
Source of Funds

Insured person: A flat-rate contribution set by the sickness fund, plus 1.25% of earnings for medical benefits and 13.25% of earnings for exceptional medical expenses insurance.

The contribution for sickness and maternity benefits for (un)employed workers is included in the contribution for unemployment benefits. The contribution for maternity benefits for self-employed workers is included in the contribution for disability benefits for self-employed workers.

Employer: 6.75% of payroll for medical benefits. The contribution for sickness and maternity benefits is included in the contribution for unemployment benefits for employed workers.

Government: Annually determined contribution toward the financing of medical benefits.

The minimum annual earnings for contribution purposes are €13,159.

The maximum earnings for contribution purposes are €113 a day (medical benefits); €29,543 a year (exceptional medical expenses); and €38,117 a year (cash sickness benefits and maternity benefits for unemployed workers).
Qualifying Conditions

Sickness benefit: Inability to perform normal work.

Maternity benefit: Employed or unemployed.

Medical benefits: Registered with an approved sickness fund.
Sickness and Maternity Benefits

Sickness benefit: 70% of earnings up to the daily maximum earnings of €167.70. Benefit is payable for up to 104 weeks; may be extended to 156 weeks.

Maternity benefit: 100% of earnings up to the daily maximum of €167.70. Benefit is payable for a period of 16 weeks around childbirth.
Workers' Medical Benefits

Service benefits are provided by doctors, hospitals, and pharmacists under contract with, and paid directly by, sickness funds. Benefits include general and specialist care, hospitalization, laboratory services, medicines, limited dental care, maternity care, appliances, rehabilitation, and transportation.

Cost sharing: Specific cost-sharing arrangements for long-term hospitalization, artificial limbs, and transportation.

There is no limit on duration (except for physiotherapy).

Exceptional medical expenses insurance takes over the cost of hospital stay from the 366th day.
Dependents' Medical Benefits

Service benefits are provided by doctors, hospitals, and pharmacists under contract with, and paid directly by, sickness funds. Benefits include general and specialist care, hospitalization, laboratory services, medicines, limited dental care, appliances, rehabilitation, and transportation.

Cost sharing: Specific cost-sharing arrangements for long-term hospitalization, artificial limbs, and transportation.

There is no limit on duration (except for physiotherapy).

Exceptional medical expenses insurance takes over the cost of hospital stay from the 366th day.

Maternity care: The partner and children of an insured man receive the same nursing or hospitalization benefits as that of an insured woman.

Death benefit: 100% of earnings up to the daily maximum of €167.70. The benefit is payable for a maximum of 1 month.
Administrative Organization

Inspection of Work and Income provides general supervision of cash benefits.

Institute for Employee Benefit Schemes collects contributions for medical benefits and administers cash benefits for sickness and maternity.

Supervisory Board for Health Care Insurance provides general supervision of medical benefits and exceptional medical expenses benefits.

National Revenue Department collects contributions for cash benefits for maternity on behalf of unemployed workers and for exceptional medical expenses insurance.

Germany

Exchange rate: US$1.00 equals 0.80 euros (€).

Sickness and Maternity
Regulatory Framework

First law: 1883.

Current laws: 1924 (maternity benefits); 1988, 2002, and 2003 (sickness insurance); and 1994 (long-term care).

Type of program: Social insurance system.
Coverage

All wage and salary workers earning up to €41,850 a year; pensioners, students, and persons with disabilities under certain conditions; and apprentices and beneficiaries of unemployment benefits.

Voluntary insurance is possible for persons whose compulsory insurance ends, subject to certain conditions.

Special systems for miners, artists, public-sector employees, and self-employed farmers.

Long-term care for all persons covered by the statutory sickness insurance scheme and some special groups subject to certain conditions. Persons with private sickness insurance must buy equivalent private coverage for long-term care.
Source of Funds
Sickness and maternity benefits

Insured person: Contributions vary by fund. On average, 7% of covered earnings. No contribution if monthly earnings are less than €400; a reduced contribution if monthly earnings are between €400 and €800. Pensioners contribute 7% of the pension on average. (Pension insurance organizations pay the same contribution as, and on behalf of, compulsorily insured pensioners and a contribution subsidy for voluntarily insured pensioners.)

Employer: Contributions vary by fund. On average, 7% of covered earnings; 11% of covered earnings for employees with monthly earnings less than €400.

Government: Subsidy for maternity benefits and for pensioned farmers' and students' health benefits. The cost of benefits for unemployed and persons in authorized training.

The maximum annual earnings for benefit and contribution purposes are €41,850 (adjusted annually to 75% of the pension contributions ceiling).
Long-term care benefits

Insured person: In one federal state, 1.35% of earnings; in all other federal states, 0.85% of earnings. Pensioners contribute on 0.85% of the pension until March 31, 2004; thereafter, 1.7% of the pension. (Until March 31, 2004, pension insurance organizations will pay the same contribution as, and on behalf of, compulsorily insured pensioners and a contribution subsidy for voluntarily insured pensioners; thereafter, the contributions will cease.)

Employer: In one federal state, 0.35% of payroll; in all other federal states, 0.85% of payroll.

Government: Contributes for unemployed persons and farmers and for students receiving benefits under the Federal Education Support Act.

The maximum annual earnings for contribution purposes (long-term care) are €41,850 (adjusted annually to 75% of the pension contributions ceiling).
Qualifying Conditions

Cash sickness and medical benefits: Membership in a sickness fund. No minimum membership period is required for medical benefits.

Cash sickness benefits: Insured persons who are unable to work or are taking care of a sick child younger than age 12.

Cash maternity benefits: Payable to female sickness fund members.

Long-term care benefits: Five years of insurance in the last 10 years. The benefit entitlement varies corresponding to a substantial need for care requiring at least one daily procedure, a severe need for care requiring procedures three times a day, or a critical need for care with round-the-clock care required.
Sickness and Maternity Benefits

Sickness benefit: Sickness funds pay 70% of gross earnings (up to a maximum of 90% of net earnings) for up to 78 weeks in a 3-year period for the same illness.

If a child is ill, sickness benefit is paid up to 10 working days per child but no longer than 25 days per insured person in each calendar year. In single-parent households, the benefit is payable for 20 working days per child, up to 50 days in a calendar year.

Maternity benefit: For female sickness fund members with an employment contract, a benefit equal to 100% of net earnings (up to €13 a day from the sickness fund with the remainder paid by the employer) is payable 6 weeks before and 8 weeks after the expected date of birth; other fund members receive the same amount as for sickness benefit.

Long-term care allowance: A carer's allowance is payable to insured persons who organize care provision for themselves (for example, care provided by relatives). The allowance is €205, €410, or €665 a month depending on the degree and frequency of care required.

The carer's allowance may be combined with benefits in kind (see home care benefits under Worker's Medical Benefits, below) provided by a professional care worker (the carer's allowance decreases in proportion to claimed in-kind benefits).

Social security contributions for carers: Contributions are paid for old-age pension insurance by long-term care funds on behalf of unpaid relatives who provide care for at least 14 hours a week for a person needing care at home and who are not employed for more than 30 hours a week. The paid contributions depend on the level of care required. Insurance coverage for work injury is also provided. When care giving ceases, former carers have the right to a cost-of-living allowance in order to facilitate their return to employment.
Workers' Medical Benefits

Benefits are provided to patients by doctors, hospitals, and pharmacists under contract with sickness funds. Benefits include comprehensive medical and dental care, preventive examinations and treatment, laboratory tests, maternity care with a midwife or doctor, hospitalization, surgery, appliances, and prescribed medicines.

Cost sharing: A copayment is necessary for certain benefits (including medicines, appliances, ambulatory care, hospitalization, and transportation) but not for hardship cases (depending on means).

Long-term care (home care benefits): Benefits include care at home and housework provided by professional care workers or outpatient care services, appliances and technical assistance (such as home modification), day and night care (including services partially provided by a care establishment), short-term institutional care, care at home if the care organized by the insured person (see long-term care cash benefits, above) is temporarily unavailable. The maximum benefit amounts are fixed for the different services.

In-kind benefits for care at home are €384, €921, or €1,432, depending on the level of care required.

Long-term care (institutional care benefits): The cost of care services is covered up to maximum amounts. The insured pays the cost of room and meals.
Dependents' Medical Benefits

Medical benefits: Same as for the insured person.

Long-term care benefits: Same as for the insured person.
Administrative Organization

Federal Ministry of Health and Social Security provides general supervision.

Federal Insurance Institute supervises federal health insurance.

Supervision at state level by designated state authorities.

Sickness funds administer contributions and benefits. Separate sickness funds are organized within federations at the national level and, if applicable, at the state level. Day-to-day administration of funds is handled by a board of directors who are elected by an administrative council generally consisting of representatives of insured persons and employers.

Regional physicians' associations contract annually with federations of funds for payment for medical services. The total sum paid by sickness funds to physicians' associations is apportioned by the latter to participating doctors.

Federal Ministry of Health and Social Security provides general supervision of long-term care. Separate funds for long-term care organized by sickness funds and private sickness insurance funds administer benefits. Federal states pay construction costs for long-term care institutions.

Switzerland
Exchange rate: US$1.00 equals 1.27 francs.

Sickness and Maternity
Regulatory Framework

First law: 1911.

Current laws: 1994 (sickness insurance) and 2000 (social insurance).

Type of program: Mandatory (medical care) and voluntary (cash benefits) private insurance system.
Coverage

Cash benefits: All persons resident in Switzerland involved in gainful activity and older than age 15 but younger than age 65 can buy insurance providing daily allowances.

Medical care: All persons resident in Switzerland.
Source of Funds
Insured person

Cash benefits: Premiums vary depending on the fund, benefits provided for the insured, age at the date of entry, and the region.

Medical care: A single premium for funds in the same region.
Employer

Cash benefits: Contributions are not required by law, but some collective agreements require the employer to share employees' membership fees.

Medical care: None.
Government

Cash benefits: None.

Medical care: Federal subsidies to cantons permit reduced premiums paid by low-income earners. Cantons must provide minimum additional assistance.
Qualifying Conditions

Cash sickness benefits: The benefit is payable to insured persons after a 3-day waiting period, unless agreed otherwise.

Cash maternity benefits: Nine months (270 days) of membership without interruption of more than 3 months.
Sickness and Maternity Benefits

Sickness benefit: The amount of the daily allowance is set by agreement between the insurer and the insured. The benefit is payable after a 3-day waiting period, unless agreed otherwise, for up to at least 720 days in a period of 900 consecutive days.

Maternity benefit: The benefit is payable for up to 16 weeks, including at least 8 weeks after childbirth.
Workers' Medical Benefits

A comprehensive list of service benefits is set by law. Funds can also provide additional benefits through complementary insurance. There is no time limit on duration.

Cost sharing: The patient pays 100% of costs up to a ceiling (standard ceiling is 300 francs) and 10% of costs above this ceiling up to a set annual total. In addition, there is a daily contribution of 10 francs for hospitalization costs (except for insured persons who live with at least one member of their family). There is no cost sharing for maternity care.
Dependents' Medical Benefits

Medical insurance is individual. Insured persons receive benefits in their own right.

A comprehensive list of service benefits is set by law. Funds can also provide additional benefits through complementary insurance. There is no time limit on duration.

Cost sharing: The patient pays 100% of costs up to a ceiling (standard ceiling is 300 francs) and 10% of costs above this ceiling up to a set annual total. In addition, there is a daily contribution of 10 francs for hospitalization costs (except for insured persons who live with at least one member of their family). There is no cost sharing for maternity care.
Administrative Organization

Federal Office of Social Insurance supervises compliance.

Recognized funds and private insurance companies are authorized to administer and provide health insurance. There were 108 recognized funds in 2001.

United States
Sickness and Maternity
Regulatory Framework
First and current lawsCash benefits: Rhode Island (1942), California (1946), New Jersey (1948), New York (1949), Hawaii (1969), and Puerto Rico (1968).

Medical benefits: 1965 (health insurance for aged) and 1972 (health insurance for disabled).

Type of program: Social insurance systems.
Coverage

Cash benefits: Employees in industry and commerce in six jurisdictions. Most agricultural workers, except in New York.

Self-employed persons in California may elect to participate.

Contracting-out is allowed, except in Rhode Island. (There are no programs in 45 states.)

Special national system for railroad employees (cash benefits) and a federal/state system for the medically indigent (medical benefits).
Medical benefits

Hospitalization: Persons eligible for a pension and aged 65 or older, certain others who qualify at age 65, disability pensioners on rolls for more than 2 years, and persons with end-stage kidney disease.

Other medical services: Persons eligible for a pension aged 65 or older, certain others who qualify at age 65, disability pensioners on rolls for more than 2 years, persons with end-stage kidney disease, and all other persons aged 65 or older through voluntary coverage.
Source of Funds
Insured person

Cash benefits: Up to 1.2% of taxable earnings, according to the jurisdiction.

Hospitalization: 1.45% (self-employed, 2.9%), paid by all workers who are covered for old-age, disability, and survivor benefits, plus some federal and state and local employees.

Other medical services: Pensioners contribute U.S.$45.50 a month.
Employer

Cash benefits: Variable payroll contributions are paid in Hawaii, New Jersey, and New York; 0.5% of payroll in Puerto Rico.

Hospitalization: 1.45% of payroll.

Other medical services: None.
Government

Cash benefits: None.

Hospitalization: Total cost of hospitalization benefits for certain noninsured aged persons.

Other medical services: The balance of the cost for voluntary insurance.

The maximum annual earnings for contribution purposes for cash benefits are U.S.$6,900 to U.S.$38,000.

There are no maximum earnings for contribution purposes for hospitalization.
Qualifying Conditions

Cash benefits: For insured persons with the required minimum insured wages in the last year (from U.S.$300 to U.S.$6,900), specific weeks of employment in the last year (from 4 to 20 weeks), or a combination of these conditions.
Medical benefits

Hospitalization: Pensioners aged 65 or older, disabled persons entitled to disability benefits for at least 2 years, or persons with end-stage kidney disease.

Other medical services: Meets the requirement for hospitalization benefits, election of coverage, and payment of required premiums.
Sickness and Maternity Benefits

Sickness benefit: Cash benefits vary, depending on the jurisdiction; 75% of earnings (Rhode Island), 66.6% (Hawaii), and 53% (New Jersey). A variable proportion of quarterly or annual earnings (California, New York, and Puerto Rico). A supplement of U.S.$5 a week per child up to a maximum of four children is payable in Rhode Island only.

Benefit is payable after 7-day waiting period (waived in California and Puerto Rico from the date of hospitalization) for up to 52 weeks.

The maximum benefit varies by jurisdiction.

Maternity benefit: Cash benefits vary, depending on the jurisdiction; 75% of earnings (Rhode Island), 66.6% (Hawaii), and 53% (New Jersey). A variable proportion of quarterly or annual earnings (California, New York, and Puerto Rico).
Workers' Medical Benefits

Hospitalization: Inpatient care is provided for stays of up to 90 days; the beneficiary is responsible for the first-day deductible of U.S.$768 (amount adjusted each year) and, for the 60th to the 90th day, 1/4 of the first-day deductible amount per day. For inpatient care longer than 90 days, coverage is available for up to 60 lifetime reserve days (the beneficiary is responsible for 1/2 of the first-day deductible amount per day). Posthospital skilled nursing facility care for an additional 100 days (the patient pays U.S.$96 for the 21st to the 100th day); laboratory and X-ray services for inpatients; and posthospital home health services.

Other medical services: Payment for 80% of reasonable charges above U.S.$100 a year for physician's services, outpatient diagnostic and physical therapy, laboratory services, appliances, and transportation; 100% of reasonable charges for home health services (after a U.S.$100 deductible is paid).

Persons eligible for both hospitalization and other medical services under the regular Medicare program, except for those with end-stage kidney disease, can as an alternative elect to participate in one of several types of Medicare Plus Choice plan if one is available in their jurisdiction.

Federal/state assistance programs: Medical services are provided to medically indigent persons of any age.
Dependents' Medical Benefits

Benefits are only for persons aged 65 or older who satisfy other qualifying requirements or who have end-stage kidney disease.

Hospitalization: Inpatient care is provided for stays of up to 90 days; the beneficiary is responsible for the first-day deductible of U.S.$768 (amount adjusted each year) and, for the 60th to the 90th day, 1/4 of the first-day deductible amount per day. For inpatient care longer than 90 days, coverage is available for up to 60 lifetime reserve days (the beneficiary is responsible for 1/2 of the first-day deductible amount per day). Posthospital skilled nursing facility care for an additional 100 days (the patient pays U.S.$96 for the 21st to the 100th day); laboratory and X-ray services for inpatients; and posthospital home health services.

Other medical services: Payment for 80% of reasonable charges above U.S.$100 a year for physician's services, outpatient diagnostic and physical therapy, laboratory services, appliances, and transportation; 100% of reasonable charges for home health services (after a U.S.$100 deductible is paid).

Persons eligible for both hospitalization and other medical services under the regular Medicare program, except for those with end-stage kidney disease, can as an alternative elect to participate in one of several types of Medicare Plus Choice plan if one is available in their jurisdiction.

Federal/state assistance programs: Medical services are provided to medically indigent persons of any age.
Administrative Organization

Cash benefits: State employment security agencies, except in New York (Workers' Compensation Board) and Hawaii (Labor Department), deliver benefits.

Medical benefits: Department of Health and Human Services provides general supervision. Centers for Medicare and Medical Services provide the national administration of the program in cooperation with the Public Health Service, Social Security Administration, and state health departments.

Private carriers and public agencies, serving under contract as intermediary administrative agents, determine and make payments to providers of services or to patients.

Medical services are furnished by providers paid for directly by carriers, or through refunds to patients by carriers of part of the medical expenses.

Includes nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, commercial insurance companies, and group-practice prepayment plans.

Labels: abortion, children, government, news, parenthood, political commentary, politics, stupid laws, women

( 2comments )

at November 22, 2006 4:15 PM  Anonymous said...

Okay, so I honestly didn't read all of the details for each country, but I felt the need to comment, anyway. Don't you just hate people like me? Either way, I remember hearing something about awesome maternity benefits in Norway a while back. They get a whole lot of time off, apparently, a quarter of which MUST be taken by the father.

That's what I thought was awesome... their children actually get to spend some of their formative years with their fathers. Not only that, but since they instituted this policy, crime levels in their cities have dropped because there've been more responsible adult men about the town with their kids. Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd research it more, but... eh, it's not really up my alley.

-Gungy

 

at November 22, 2006 4:30 PM  Samantha said...

That's really cool. I remember reading about that, actually. More industrialized nations are including paternity benefits as part of family planning. Not the USA. Or Australia. But places like France and Britain are doing that.

I just find it sadly ironic that our country, who re-elected a stupid president (if we want to believe he was, indeed, legally re-elected) on the basis that his platform stressed "family values" -- and yet nothing is done to actually help families. I just don't get it.

I read that Michigan Tech, though, is building a child care facility on campus near the forestry building, which will have the capacity to take care of 40 infants/children. They're doing this to entice younger professors to come to campus. I thought that was interesting.

 

So in Calgary, apparently there's something called childfree housing. I was just wondering how others feel about this. For example, here's a condo for rent in Calgary that says Kids Allowed: No. When you go to do an advanced search, kids are a selectable feature, such as Kids Allowed (299), Negotiable (119), Not Allowed (202).

On the one hand, I think it's pretty neat. Because if seniors can have communities where it's against the rules to have children living with you, then it strikes me that it makes logical sense to allow adults in the prime of life the same tranquility as well.

But on the other hand, I think the Fair Housing Act was instituted for a reason in the United States. It seems like it's a slippery slope to start sanctioning housing in these kinds of terms. Although, I suppose some apartments allow cats, but not dogs. Or no pets at all. And isn't that horrible, etc. But we are talking about human beings. Mini human beings. I guess you could claim you're allergic to children. Heh. I know children make screeching noises, and some people literally have allergic reactions to the shrieks, breaking out in hives and rashes from the loud pitch. And some people have anxiety disorders.

So I'm not sure how I feel about it personally. I feel like it's nice for regularly aged adults (people from 18 to the age when you start getting discounts for movies and museums) to have this opportunity. But oftentimes, it's not the children who are the annoying neighbors anyway. It's the adults.

Labels: cfbc, childfree by choice, news, politics

( 3comments )

at September 26, 2006 4:31 PM  Anonymous said...

Whenever someone suggests the idea of adult-only housing (which, BTW, existed in this country within living memory), or restaurants, or what have you, the counterargument always seems to be the same: comparing the annoyances that adults visit upon us. Kid screeching at dinner bother you? Why aren't you complaining about the couple fighting at the other table?

I think this is a red herring. As an analogy: just because there are other annoying noises in the world doesn't mean I'm unreasonable for wanting my neighbor to fix his broken car alarm.

Children are not just short adults; they're qualitatively different from adults. Yes, there are annoying adults in the world, and there are non-annoying children. But when I'm thinking of minimizing my annoyances and I think "eliminate children," I'm playing some pretty long odds. For every problem adult at a restaurant, I've seen at least a dozen problem children. Also, for some reason the management doesn't seem to be quite as eager to ask the problem children to leave.

Nobody seriously questions my right to exclude children from my home; why can't I live in a neighborhood of like-minded people? Is it really because people with children will have trouble finding housing? (That's not a rhetorical question; I don't know how it would play out. Are they having problems in Canada?) If they would have trouble, why does that bother us, and the fact that my family--with two dogs--would have trouble finding housing is okay?

 

at October 8, 2006 1:19 PM  Lindsay Jo Beautiful said...

I currently live in Red Deer, however, I have lived in Calgary and Fort McMurray, as well as Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. All four of these cities offer childfree housing-- it's a norm here in Canada.

I agree a lot with what Anonymous had to say. In retrospect, this sort of housing segregation could have the potential to make it diffucult for people with children to find rental properties. But, from my experience, this isn't really the case. Most landlords seem warmer to rent to young families than a group of 20-somethings going to school or starting their careers. Not to mention, childfree housing tends to be a little pricier, which makes it less undesirable to families in the first place.

But there is a fine line.....

To answer Anonymous' question, this is why it would bother us if people with children had problems finding housing-- because children are important to our communities, whether we personally like them, or not, and in order for us to have a strong community, young parents need our support, at least to some degree.

But, as a Canadian, I can't say that people with kids have any more trouble than the rest of us when it comes to finding good rentals.

Around here, childfree housing is a non-issue.

 

at October 9, 2006 9:55 AM  Anonymous said...

Thanks for the Canadian perspective!

I wasn't asking why people with children having a problem finding housing was a problem in the abstract; I was just pointing out that some families (such as mine, with dogs) have more trouble than others finding housing. Some of those problems are protected under the law and some aren't, and it's not clear to me why some things fall on one side of the line and others on the other.

From the American side, it seems to me that restricting someone's right to decide who gets to live in their property is not something that ought to be done lightly. Given the history of discrimination against some groups, especially racial, I am comfortable with not allowing people to discriminate in housing based on race: The social benefit outweighs the loss of personal freedom.

It doesn't sound like this is the case with discrimination based on "familial status," or at least not in Canada. I've heard it said that familial status was being used as a proxy for race (i.e., certain groups tend to have larger families, ergo by limiting family size you tend to select against those races), but I'm not convinced that that argument is strong enough that it should have overcome the presumption that people are free to use their property as they please (so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others).

But, I don't get to make the rules, at least not directly, so here in America this is what we're stuck with for now.