Co-worker can't leave job because of Defense of Marriage Act

[Anonymous]

If anyone with a family supports this, then they have no right to complain about the costs of medical benefits in the future. For the two PP's who don't seem to understand the discussion...

We are talking about homosexuals wanting to get a NEW benefit that will add to the cost of health insurance coverage for employers. Family health benefits were intended for FAMILIES, not for homosexuals living together. Most of us have seen the cost of health insurance skyrocket.

For a gay man to stop working when he is perfectly able to and wish to for the co-workers of his partner to foot the bill for his insurance is wrong.

For the poster who insulted stay at home moms... Raising children IS a job. It's probably the most important job in our society.

To be honest, the expensive benefits and the short leave time for people to have and raise children is a disgrace. If a new benefit for homosexuals were to be added, this will only get worse.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:If anyone with a family supports this, then they have no right to complain about the costs of medical benefits in the future. For the two PP's who don't seem to understand the discussion...

We are talking about homosexuals wanting to get a NEW benefit that will add to the cost of health insurance coverage for employers. Family health benefits were intended for FAMILIES, not for homosexuals living together. Most of us have seen the cost of health insurance skyrocket.

For a gay man to stop working when he is perfectly able to and wish to for the co-workers of his partner to foot the bill for his insurance is wrong.

For the poster who insulted stay at home moms... Raising children IS a job. It's probably the most important job in our society.

To be honest, the expensive benefits and the short leave time for people to have and raise children is a disgrace. If a new benefit for homosexuals were to be added, this will only get worse.

For you, the important thing is that this is new and costs money. For me, it's about the fact that someone is being left out of a benefit that others have been getting for years. "I'm on board, pull up the ladders" is one of the oldest human tendencies, so I understand what you're saying, but don't say it's what we are talking about.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Thanks, Takoma. I agree with you. My co-worker WOULD be working, in a start-up small business with me. Providing much-needed services to kids that need them. If it takes off, we would eventually hire people, be able to afford providing health insurance to ourselves and our employees, and promote the US economy. However, he can't do it because his spouse works for the federal government, which does not provide health benefits to same-sex married couples.

All you haters out there - don't you support small business?

[Anonymous]

I have no idea why you are under the impression that my family (wife,me, and two sons) does not exsist. I also fail to see how covering my family is any different for my employer than covering another family of four. It is a basic matter of fairness. I was married in a legal ceremony, in my church, and my kids are legally both of ours.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea why you are under the impression that my family (wife,me, and two sons) does not exsist. I also fail to see how covering my family is any different for my employer than covering another family of four. It is a basic matter of fairness. I was married in a legal ceremony, in my church, and my kids are legally both of ours.

It's because you don't fit their Dick and Jane, second grade reader, image of the family. Never mind that your kids have two loving parents, their concern is not people, but images.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If anyone with a family supports this, then they have no right to complain about the costs of medical benefits in the future. For the two PP's who don't seem to understand the discussion...

We are talking about homosexuals wanting to get a NEW benefit that will add to the cost of health insurance coverage for employers. Family health benefits were intended for FAMILIES, not for homosexuals living together. Most of us have seen the cost of health insurance skyrocket.

For a gay man to stop working when he is perfectly able to and wish to for the co-workers of his partner to foot the bill for his insurance is wrong.

For the poster who insulted stay at home moms... Raising children IS a job. It's probably the most important job in our society.

To be honest, the expensive benefits and the short leave time for people to have and raise children is a disgrace. If a new benefit for homosexuals were to be added, this will only get worse.

Sine I SAH I was not insulting my own kind. I was pointing out the idiocy of your post, which is to suggest that spousal coverage is some sort of free ride.

I see no reason why medical care costs will skyrocket because of this. Companies and employees pay for it. The guy is currently covered under one company. Later he would be covered by a different one No extra people will be carried by the health care system.

Lastly supporting monogamy has a positive effect on health care costs. For gays for straights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically your co-worker wants for someone else to pay for his health insurance so that he try to start a business, go fishing, or whatever. As if the healthcare system and economy aren't burdened enough.

Agree. Married or not, lots of us have had to worry about affording insurance and make decisions accordingly. I think your concerns are misplaced.

A little angry, are we?

Unfortunately, Most Americans have health insurance through their employers and until there's a public option, people will continue to work at jobs that they would othewise quit. You must have misread the OP's post - she wasn't asking anyone to pay for her co-worker's health insurance. How did you arrive to the conclusion that her co-worker wants someone to pay for his health insurance so he can go fishing or whatever?

Stop watching Fox news! Propaganda and lies....

[Anonymous]

The worst part about this is that employers are _forced_ to cover homosexuals. If your employer is struggling in this economy, if you don't agree that the lifestyle should be elevated to a higher status -- you pay anyway.

Just for a ballpark, employers probably subsidize health insurance at around $3,000 a month. I'm guessing that gay couples will clamor for the benefits (and probably some straight roommates) at about one in ten, or one in twenty employees.

Employers could cover it now, but this friend wants to make them unwillingly hurt their business.

You know what he should do? Find an honest way to start the business. Get investors, save money, etc. Our economy if floundering, we are in deficit spending. People are losing health care coverage left and right. Benefits get worse every year. Check it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The worst part about this is that employers are _forced_ to cover homosexuals. If your employer is struggling in this economy, if you don't agree that the lifestyle should be elevated to a higher status -- you pay anyway.

Just for a ballpark, employers probably subsidize health insurance at around $3,000 a month. I'm guessing that gay couples will clamor for the benefits (and probably some straight roommates) at about one in ten, or one in twenty employees.

Employers could cover it now, but this friend wants to make them unwillingly hurt their business.


You know what he should do? Find an honest way to start the business. Get investors, save money, etc. Our economy if floundering, we are in deficit spending. People are losing health care coverage left and right. Benefits get worse every year. Check it out.

What on earth are you babbling about? Did you stumble the wrong thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The worst part about this is that employers are _forced_ to cover homosexuals. If your employer is struggling in this economy, if you don't agree that the lifestyle should be elevated to a higher status -- you pay anyway.

Just for a ballpark, employers probably subsidize health insurance at around $3,000 a month. I'm guessing that gay couples will clamor for the benefits (and probably some straight roommates) at about one in ten, or one in twenty employees.

Employers could cover it now, but this friend wants to make them unwillingly hurt their business.

You know what he should do? Find an honest way to start the business. Get investors, save money, etc. Our economy if floundering, we are in deficit spending. People are losing health care coverage left and right. Benefits get worse every year. Check it out.

Covering two monogamous males is cheap compared to heterosexual couples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically your co-worker wants for someone else to pay for his health insurance so that he try to start a business, go fishing, or whatever. As if the healthcare system and economy aren't burdened enough.

Agree. Married or not, lots of us have had to worry about affording insurance and make decisions accordingly. I think your concerns are misplaced.

A little angry, are we?

Unfortunately, Most Americans have health insurance through their employers and until there's a public option, people will continue to work at jobs that they would othewise quit. You must have misread the OP's post - she wasn't asking anyone to pay for her co-worker's health insurance. How did you arrive to the conclusion that her co-worker wants someone to pay for his health insurance so he can go fishing or whatever?

Stop watching Fox news! Propaganda and lies....

Don't you understand the discussion? If businesses are mandated to cover benefits for gay couples, they are being forced to subsidize family medical benefits for them. This means that the cost of health benefits go up for the company. Please let me know if I can explain further.

[Anonymous]

Don't you understand the discussion? If businesses are mandated to cover benefits for gay couples, they are being forced to subsidize family medical benefits for them. This means that the cost of health benefits go up for the company. Please let me know if I can explain further.
>>>>>>

Look, I'm an HR person. I do our health insurance renewal every year. I see te quotes, I pay the bills. The employer pays the premiums for the employee only. The additional premium for additional family members is at the employee's option and the employee's cost. It doesn't cost my office any more to have your family of ten on the insurance, or just you, the employee. In fact the larger the group of covered people paying premiums, the better for everyone.

So whether John in accounting marries a woman or a man doesn't change what my employer pays. Unless you are saying insurers are going to raise our basic premiums if we have same sex couples on the insurance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Don't you understand the discussion? If businesses are mandated to cover benefits for gay couples, they are being forced to subsidize family medical benefits for them. This means that the cost of health benefits go up for the company. Please let me know if I can explain further.
>>>>>>

Look, I'm an HR person. I do our health insurance renewal every year. I see te quotes, I pay the bills. The employer pays the premiums for the employee only. The additional premium for additional family members is at the employee's option and the employee's cost. It doesn't cost my office any more to have your family of ten on the insurance, or just you, the employee.

Don't you understand that this is your employer's decision? I've worked at a place where the whole family was covered 100% by the employer. Currently my employer covers 80% of the whole cost. I've also seen employers that do it the way yours does. But that is far from universal!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Don't you understand the discussion? If businesses are mandated to cover benefits for gay couples, they are being forced to subsidize family medical benefits for them. This means that the cost of health benefits go up for the company. Please let me know if I can explain further.
>>>>>>

Look, I'm an HR person. I do our health insurance renewal every year. I see te quotes, I pay the bills. The employer pays the premiums for the employee only. The additional premium for additional family members is at the employee's option and the employee's cost. It doesn't cost my office any more to have your family of ten on the insurance, or just you, the employee.

Don't you understand that this is your employer's decision? I've worked at a place where the whole family was covered 100% by the employer. Currently my employer covers 80% of the whole cost. I've also seen employers that do it the way yours does. But that is far from universal!

Of course I understand that. Every employer makes their own choice on that. But no one is forcing them to pay premiums to cover family members or those pesky gays, either. So why are your panties in such a bunch? How does it hurt you or me if we allow John in accounting's gay live in lover to be in our insurance pool? At John's cost?

If there's a law that passes that says employers have to pay for everyone on the insurance, including domestic partners, then I could see your point.... kinda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Don't you understand the discussion? If businesses are mandated to cover benefits for gay couples, they are being forced to subsidize family medical benefits for them. This means that the cost of health benefits go up for the company. Please let me know if I can explain further.
>>>>>>

Look, I'm an HR person. I do our health insurance renewal every year. I see te quotes, I pay the bills. The employer pays the premiums for the employee only. The additional premium for additional family members is at the employee's option and the employee's cost. It doesn't cost my office any more to have your family of ten on the insurance, or just you, the employee. In fact the larger the group of covered people paying premiums, the better for everyone.

So whether John in accounting marries a woman or a man doesn't change what my employer pays. Unless you are saying insurers are going to raise our basic premiums if we have same sex couples on the insurance?

Your office has horrible benefits, and I wish that you understood your profession better. Here is a 2010 survey of health insurance costs. The average that employers subsidizes individual coverage per year is $899. For a family, the business pays $3,997 annually. See exhibit B http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2010/8086.pdf. So family coverage is a substantially higher cost for employers. (A gay couple would be covered under a family plan.)

It is worth pointing out that the average family contribution, not including employer, for all plans, including the bad ones is $9,773. This is a great expense that people with families have to pay out. I don't think that families really need to have a reason for employers to make them pay a greater percentage once employers have to start covering gay couples.

BTW, you HAVE to look at exhibit A to see how insurance costs have skyrocketed. Yeah, we really need to strain the system more.