Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucsfcca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!ucsfcca!dick
From: dick@ucsfcca.UUCP (Dick Karpinski)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Carrers vs. Relationships
Message-ID: <436@ucsfcca.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Feb-86 16:05:59 EST
Article-I.D.: ucsfcca.436
Posted: Thu Feb 13 16:05:59 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Feb-86 02:55:46 EST
References: <162@hal.UUCP>
Reply-To: dick@ucsfcca.UUCP (Dick Karpinski)
Distribution: na
Organization: UCSF Computer Center
Lines: 25
Keywords: financial facts

In article <162@hal.UUCP> dwb@hal.UUCP (D. W. Brescan) writes:
>
>This is very important.  I especially think it is important for both
>spouses to be insured.  It seems that a lot of financial advisors are
>advising that only the spouse providing financial support for the family
>should be insured, since the one staying home taking care of the kids
>is not contirbuting anything financially, anyways, right? WRONG!!!
>Consider if the caretaker is disabled or dies, the working spouse would
>either have to quit work to care for the family, or hire a third-party
>care-taker, either of which would require money.

As I understand it, the reasoning is that spouses cost more than hired
caregivers, even when there are care needing family members.  Rather
than not contributing, it is just that the primary care functions are
usually achievable for less than the financial cost of maintaining a
live-at-home spouse.  The other functions are not known to be buyable
at any price in dollars, so insurance does not help.

Dick

-- 
Dick Karpinski    Manager of Unix Services, UCSF Computer Center
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!dick   (415) 666-4529 (12-7)
BITNET: dick@ucsfcca   Compuserve: 70215,1277  Telemail: RKarpinski
USPS: U-76 UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143