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

[Anonymous]

Link again http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2010/8086.pdf

[Anonymous]

Woops. I had that backwards. Employers pay $9,773 annually on average for employee health insurance. The worker's contribution is $3,997 per year. So you can see that adding a gay man will cost his partner's employer quite a bit more.

BTW, health insurance costs have gone up 150% for employers in just 10 years!

Link again. http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2010/8086.pdf

[Anonymous]

Can't the partner just stay under the FEHBP and the guy you work with buy his own? We purchase our own health care and my husband and kids are under one plan while I am under another. We do that because I get maternity benefits on a higher priced plan. We dont need the better plan for the entire family just me.

Not that hard to figure out. All families do it everyday.

[Anonymous]

I actually don't understand this. The DOMA doesn't mandate that employers not provide same sex benefits. The federal government didn't provide same sex benefits before DOMA either. Plenty of employers in this area do. My company has been providing them since before I started (in 1999). Not a very progressive place and nothing has changed post DOMA.

If same sex benefits are important then your co-worker may want to look around for that rather than going to a startup. Or maybe you could provide them at the start since this person is who you want and what he needs. Business costs a lot and this is just one of the costs.

[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. 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.

Yes, but once again - no one is forcing the employers to pay for - or even "subsidize" - partners or kids or spouses or families. No one is even actually forcing them to offer group health insurance. Employers offer these benefits because such benes help them attract and retain good workers. And some of the best workers I've ever hired have been the gay ones. I'd like to attract and retain them, too.
I still don't see how your stats prove that it will be any more burdensome for an employer to choose to subsidize gay parnters vs. current spouses. And as long as the employer CHOOSES, I don't have a beef with it,.

[Anonymous]

So, what you are saying is that my family is so profoundly different than yours that to cover us, we are in effect trying to bring down the nation's economy? Yup. That's the plan. Wait til you get to our Subarus and Birkenstocks for all platform.

Again, it is only fair to cover all families the same way. I work hard, I pay into the system. This train has left the station- we are citizens who deserve the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. There is nothing "special" about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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.

Yes, but once again - no one is forcing the employers to pay for - or even "subsidize" - partners or kids or spouses or families. No one is even actually forcing them to offer group health insurance. Employers offer these benefits because such benes help them attract and retain good workers. And some of the best workers I've ever hired have been the gay ones. I'd like to attract and retain them, too.
I still don't see how your stats prove that it will be any more burdensome for an employer to choose to subsidize gay parnters vs. current spouses. And as long as the employer CHOOSES, I don't have a beef with it,.

Right. This person's employer isn't being forced to offer the new benefit -- and as a result, they aren't offering it. I'm saying that gay activists are trying to force their lifestyle on others in part due to greed. A few employers do offer the benefit, like Levi's. I'm not in favor of it, but it's way different from a compulsory program. For one thing, they can add it to their business plan.

What's to understand? If you add a benefit for gay partners of employees, versus just the employee, it costs more. Just guessing from the numbers above maybe about $7,000 per year. I won't be annoyed if you ask for clarification. AN ADDED BENEFIT FOR GAY PARTNERS COSTS EMPLOYERS MONEY. What's confusing about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

well, you didn't appear to understand that. You seemed to think your employer's practices were across the board. My panties aren't in a bunch! I have no problem with employers covering gay partners if they want to.

[Anonymous]

jeez...your pitiful insurance-centric anxiety is totally gay.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:jeez...your pitiful insurance-centric anxiety is totally gay.

Are you aware that since most of us don't know which Anonymous you are, and since you included no quote to indicate whom you are talking to, we have no idea whether you are the gay hater being serious or the gay sympathizer being ironic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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.

Yes, but once again - no one is forcing the employers to pay for - or even "subsidize" - partners or kids or spouses or families. No one is even actually forcing them to offer group health insurance. Employers offer these benefits because such benes help them attract and retain good workers. And some of the best workers I've ever hired have been the gay ones. I'd like to attract and retain them, too.
I still don't see how your stats prove that it will be any more burdensome for an employer to choose to subsidize gay parnters vs. current spouses. And as long as the employer CHOOSES, I don't have a beef with it,.

Right. This person's employer isn't being forced to offer the new benefit -- and as a result, they aren't offering it. I'm saying that gay activists are trying to force their lifestyle on others in part due to greed. A few employers do offer the benefit, like Levi's. I'm not in favor of it, but it's way different from a compulsory program. For one thing, they can add it to their business plan.

What's to understand? If you add a benefit for gay partners of employees, versus just the employee, it costs more. Just guessing from the numbers above maybe about $7,000 per year. I won't be annoyed if you ask for clarification. AN ADDED BENEFIT FOR GAY PARTNERS COSTS EMPLOYERS MONEY. What's confusing about it?

Not really. They are just as likely to save money when one of their gay employees moves to a spouse's plan as they are to get a gay spouse. It's a zero sum game because all of these people are covered to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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.

Yes, but once again - no one is forcing the employers to pay for - or even "subsidize" - partners or kids or spouses or families. No one is even actually forcing them to offer group health insurance. Employers offer these benefits because such benes help them attract and retain good workers. And some of the best workers I've ever hired have been the gay ones. I'd like to attract and retain them, too.
I still don't see how your stats prove that it will be any more burdensome for an employer to choose to subsidize gay parnters vs. current spouses. And as long as the employer CHOOSES, I don't have a beef with it,.

Right. This person's employer isn't being forced to offer the new benefit -- and as a result, they aren't offering it. I'm saying that gay activists are trying to force their lifestyle on others in part due to greed. A few employers do offer the benefit, like Levi's. I'm not in favor of it, but it's way different from a compulsory program. For one thing, they can add it to their business plan.

What's to understand? If you add a benefit for gay partners of employees, versus just the employee, it costs more. Just guessing from the numbers above maybe about $7,000 per year. I won't be annoyed if you ask for clarification. AN ADDED BENEFIT FOR GAY PARTNERS COSTS EMPLOYERS MONEY. What's confusing about it?

Not really. They are just as likely to save money when one of their gay employees moves to a spouse's plan as they are to get a gay spouse. It's a zero sum game because all of these people are covered to begin with.

This thread started with a gay partner wanting to quit working in order to get benefits, so that's a strike against your theory already. Many partners will be added that don't have jobs or jobs with benefits. It's guaranteed that people will try to exploit this as much as possible through straights acting gay and people becoming partners simply to be added to benefits.

If you already have health insurance, the only reason for moving to a partner's plan and dropping yours would be because it was more generous, as in costing the company more money.

What you're doing is implying that gays already have medical benefits, which means that a partner benefit isn't necessary. Why even add it if no one needs it in the first place?

In truth, it would be a great windfall for homosexual couples, which is why there is so much fuss about it.

[Anonymous]

My first sentence of the PP is incorrect. The partner wanted to get benefits so that he could quit working.

[Anonymous]

Also, what about single people? What about single moms? They don't have anyone to fall back on for health benefits. Why are the needs of gay men any greater than theirs?

If you want to add a burden to the system further, I'd lengthen the time for COBRA. Better yet, lengthen maternity leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, what about single people? What about single moms? They don't have anyone to fall back on for health benefits. Why are the needs of gay men any greater than theirs?

If you want to add a burden to the system further, I'd lengthen the time for COBRA. Better yet, lengthen maternity leave.

Nobody's needs are greater in this scenario. We are talking about an employer provided benefit. My employer chooses to provide me with a health insurance plan which allows me to add dependents at my cost. Including same sex partners. The employer chooses to do this to attract and retain good workers.

The employer has no relationship with the single moms (like me) you mention. It's not their responsibility to offer them a health care plan. Whose responsibility is it? Didn't we just go through that debate as a country?

And what do you mean by lengthen maternity leave? We don't HAVE maternity leave.