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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let's go over it again. Employers on average pay $9,773 for family healtcare coverage http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2010/8086.pdf Some employers pay no percentage at all, but on average, they pay quite a bit. Most employers cover maternity leave. This may be called maternity leave or it may come under long-term disability, and it usually includes sick days.. Generally, it's pretty crappy, but there is something there.

I'd like to add that many offices let people donate their sick days. You should push for such a program in your office, and you can donate to gay couples instead of forcing the rest of us to do so against our will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let's go over it again. Employers on average pay $9,773 for family healtcare coverage http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2010/8086.pdf Some employers pay no percentage at all, but on average, they pay quite a bit. Most employers cover maternity leave. This may be called maternity leave or it may come under long-term disability, and it usually includes sick days.. Generally, it's pretty crappy, but there is something there.

I'd like to add that many offices let people donate their sick days. You should push for such a program in your office, and you can donate to gay couples instead of forcing the rest of us to do so against our will.

MOST employers cover maternity leave? MOST employers have disability? Really? Where are you getting this info?

[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.

huh? How am I - a working, married female who's covered under husband's policy b/c it's better - any different from the partner of my gay colleague, who stays at home, btw., to care for their child?

You clearly have issues with homosexuality.

[Anonymous]

According to the Society of HR management (SHRM), only 16% of surveyed employers offer paid maternity leave. See page 34.

http://www.weknownext.com/docs/2011_Emp_Benefits_Report.pdf

The good news is that this report does show a high percentage of employers offering disability insurance. However disability insurance usually has 1) waiting periods 2) caps on how much they will pay - say 60% of pay up to a limit of x number of dollars. So for many people, while that coverage is better than nothing, it does not exactly provide "paid maternity leave".

[Anonymous]

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.

I don't think you understand. The gay professor in the OP's scenario *HAS* insurance. But, because of DOMA, he doesn't qualify for family coverage under his husband's government employee plan. That impedes his ability to change jobs. If he was straight and married to a woman, he's be able to take advantage of family coverage. If he's gay and married, he should be able to as well.

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?

By this logic, no partner benefit is necessary for hetero couples either. Oh, wait, there's those pesky SAHMs again. Why should a gay SAH parent be treated differently than a straight SAH parent?

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

Yes - but it's a windfall that equalizes the playing field.

It's clear that you have deep issues with homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular. That's your right, of course, but your "economic" arguments are disjointed, inconsistent, and just generally incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My co-worker is a brilliant educator. I'd love to ask him to join me in a start-up business. He can't because, despite being married for many years, his same-sex marriage is not "legal" under federal law and he needs his current-job health benefits. This real-world example brought home how unfair our current laws are. Just wanted to vent.

I don't get this. Do private companies need to follow federal law and NOT offer health care benefits to gay partners? I thought some companies provided this benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My co-worker is a brilliant educator. I'd love to ask him to join me in a start-up business. He can't because, despite being married for many years, his same-sex marriage is not "legal" under federal law and he needs his current-job health benefits. This real-world example brought home how unfair our current laws are. Just wanted to vent.

I don't get this. Do private companies need to follow federal law and NOT offer health care benefits to gay partners? I thought some companies provided this benefit.

The problem is that the husband of the brillant educator works for the feds and under DOMA the federal government cannot provide the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Brillant educator needs to maintain his own health insurance and cannot be added to fed husband's plan, even if the couple paid all of the cost. Some companies offer the option to add same-sex spouses/partners to health insurance, and companies vary as to whether they will pay any of the additional cost of adding the spouse/partner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My co-worker is a brilliant educator. I'd love to ask him to join me in a start-up business. He can't because, despite being married for many years, his same-sex marriage is not "legal" under federal law and he needs his current-job health benefits. This real-world example brought home how unfair our current laws are. Just wanted to vent.

I don't get this. Do private companies need to follow federal law and NOT offer health care benefits to gay partners? I thought some companies provided this benefit.

The problem is that the husband of the brillant educator works for the feds and under DOMA the federal government cannot provide the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Brillant educator needs to maintain his own health insurance and cannot be added to fed husband's plan, even if the couple paid all of the cost. Some companies offer the option to add same-sex spouses/partners to health insurance, and companies vary as to whether they will pay any of the additional cost of adding the spouse/partner.

In sum, he wants taxpayers to fund his benefits so that he can quit working. Federal benefits are VERY generous, so there's no way that he'd be paying all of the costs.

I love liberal philosophy, you want my money, and if I don't give it you you, I'm a bad person, I have issues, etc. Those extorting the money are morally superior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My co-worker is a brilliant educator. I'd love to ask him to join me in a start-up business. He can't because, despite being married for many years, his same-sex marriage is not "legal" under federal law and he needs his current-job health benefits. This real-world example brought home how unfair our current laws are. Just wanted to vent.

I don't get this. Do private companies need to follow federal law and NOT offer health care benefits to gay partners? I thought some companies provided this benefit.

The problem is that the husband of the brillant educator works for the feds and under DOMA the federal government cannot provide the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Brillant educator needs to maintain his own health insurance and cannot be added to fed husband's plan, even if the couple paid all of the cost. Some companies offer the option to add same-sex spouses/partners to health insurance, and companies vary as to whether they will pay any of the additional cost of adding the spouse/partner.

In sum, he wants taxpayers to fund his benefits so that he can quit working. Federal benefits are VERY generous, so there's no way that he'd be paying all of the costs.

I love liberal philosophy, you want my money, and if I don't give it you you, I'm a bad person, I have issues, etc. Those extorting the money are morally superior.

Then why are you ok with hetero spouses and children being on a fed worker's insurance? Or should the federal government not provide any benefits that would assist their employees and their families?

[Anonymous]

In sum, he wants taxpayers to fund his benefits so that he can quit working. Federal benefits are VERY generous, so there's no way that he'd be paying all of the costs.

I love liberal philosophy, you want my money, and if I don't give it you you, I'm a bad person, I have issues, etc. Those extorting the money are morally superior.

Do you feel that way about all family coverage? The SAH spouse of a federal worker with 3 kids also "wants taxpayers to fund [her] benefits so [she] can quit working." In fact, she already has her hand in your pocket - her benefits are already paid for. What's the difference? Is she also extorting money?

Hell, it doesn't have to be a SAHM - one of my co-worker's husband is a Fed, and she's on his health plan because it's better than ours.

I don't see how there is any difference without resorting to homophobia, but please, enlighten me. I'd love to see you try to claim the moral high ground here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My co-worker is a brilliant educator. I'd love to ask him to join me in a start-up business. He can't because, despite being married for many years, his same-sex marriage is not "legal" under federal law and he needs his current-job health benefits. This real-world example brought home how unfair our current laws are. Just wanted to vent.

I don't get this. Do private companies need to follow federal law and NOT offer health care benefits to gay partners? I thought some companies provided this benefit.

The problem is that the husband of the brillant educator works for the feds and under DOMA the federal government cannot provide the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Brillant educator needs to maintain his own health insurance and cannot be added to fed husband's plan, even if the couple paid all of the cost. Some companies offer the option to add same-sex spouses/partners to health insurance, and companies vary as to whether they will pay any of the additional cost of adding the spouse/partner.

In sum, he wants taxpayers to fund his benefits so that he can quit working. Federal benefits are VERY generous, so there's no way that he'd be paying all of the costs.

I love liberal philosophy, you want my money, and if I don't give it you you, I'm a bad person, I have issues, etc. Those extorting the money are morally superior.

I love a bigot's philosophy. You don't look like me, and therefore you can't have what everyone else is allowed. Your marriage threatens mine. Your life is about making me uncomfortable by flaunting it in my face.

[Anonymous]

you have proved my point-it is not about marriage it is about benefits

call it same sex beneifts not marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think you understand. The gay professor in the OP's scenario *HAS* insurance. But, because of DOMA, he doesn't qualify for family coverage under his husband's government employee plan. That impedes his ability to change jobs. If he was straight and married to a woman, he's be able to take advantage of family coverage. If he's gay and married, he should be able to as well.

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?

By this logic, no partner benefit is necessary for hetero couples either. Oh, wait, there's those pesky SAHMs again. Why should a gay SAH parent be treated differently than a straight SAH parent?

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

Yes - but it's a windfall that equalizes the playing field.

It's clear that you have deep issues with homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular. That's your right, of course, but your "economic" arguments are disjointed, inconsistent, and just generally incorrect.

I do understand, and just below my post that you quoted, I said that I had written the first sentence wrong. He wants to get benefits (from his partner) so that he can quit working. Did you misquote me on purpose, or was it just a sloppy attack? If fact, all you're providing are personal attacks.

There is no economic issue to understand -- it costs more money -- which you agree with. That's all I'm really saying in this regard.

Mostly, I really want to know why you brought up "those pesky SAHMs again."

Listen, this is a political board for discussing -- politics. So you don't agree with me, fine. We're supposed to debate in a democracy. Why do the administrators here have to get so nasty? You're making a living on this site, you'd think you could treat the users with some respect.

[Anonymous]

Mostly, I really want to know why you brought up "those pesky SAHMs again."

Because it's the same analysis - non-working spouse (or spouse whose employer provides no or sub-par insurance) gets family coverage in connection with fed worker spouse. Why are benefits for the hetero spouse OK, but benefits for the non-hetero spouse will bring economic ruin to the Republic? See the post at 16:43 for further elaboration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In sum, he wants taxpayers to fund his benefits so that he can quit working. Federal benefits are VERY generous, so there's no way that he'd be paying all of the costs.

I love liberal philosophy, you want my money, and if I don't give it you you, I'm a bad person, I have issues, etc. Those extorting the money are morally superior.

Do you feel that way about all family coverage? The SAH spouse of a federal worker with 3 kids also "wants taxpayers to fund [her] benefits so [she] can quit working." In fact, she already has her hand in your pocket - her benefits are already paid for. What's the difference? Is she also extorting money?

Hell, it doesn't have to be a SAHM - one of my co-worker's husband is a Fed, and she's on his health plan because it's better than ours.

I don't see how there is any difference without resorting to homophobia, but please, enlighten me. I'd love to see you try to claim the moral high ground here.

I'll go back to another thread to where I explain the difference between heterosexual and homosexual partners and post it here.

For now, one of the big issues I have is that you are forcing people to pay for something that they don't agree with. Sure, I know, none of us agree with a lot of things that the government does, but this is clearly a cutting edge issue working its way through our country.

I'll provide an example. The federal government also does not allow Fed health benefits to cover abortion. I'm pro-choice, but you know, I totally understand why taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that.

So forcing people to support gay health insurance at the point of a gun (try not paying your taxes and see what happens) is morally wrong. See there. I CAN claim the moral high ground just like the sanctimonious money takers.