Should ex-spouses continue to be covered by health insurance paid for by the employer of the working spouse? The New Hampshire Legislature said "yes" and passed such a law.

Divorced or separated spouses, women and men, are eligible for health coverage for up to three years, unless either party remarries. Coverage will also end if health care arrangements are provided in a final decree of divorce.

In an op-ed piece, the conservative, Manchester Union-Leader newspaper loudly groused about the "continued spread of European-style socialism into New Hampshire..." This mandate is a heavy burden on businesses and insurance companies, the newspaper proclaimed.

I don't think this is an excessive burden on employers. To eliminate this coverage because of a divorce would shift the burden to society and taxpayers who would have to pay for medical care for those without insurance.

The New Hampshire law may be one small step for society to recognize the need for universal medical insurance. Employers should see the importance of keeping workers and their families healthy. Continuing to insure divorced or separated spouses is extremely helpful in easing a difficult transition.

This is an excellent model of public policy which more states should follow. The implications are huge, given that about 46 million in the U.S. have no health coverage. States in New England may take the lead in not adding to that figure. It's appropriate that the "financially independent party" in a divorce, continue to provide some protection for the ex-spouse. The Manchester Union-Leader lamented that conservative Gov. John Lynch signed the legislation. But is this "socialism" or merely protecting the common good? I think the latter.

Click here for more.