Domestic partner benefits for state employees (Surprise: insurance, home, income)

[Valley Native]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1203benefits1203-ONL.html (broken link)

So what does everyone think about this? My opinion: I would prefer that the state simply do away with ALL joint type of benefits, including those currently given to married couples. There's no legitimate reason why married couples should receive special benefits over unmarried people. However, if we must still pay out benefits to married couples, it would seem only fair to include the so called domestic partners as well.

Now, if the Governor wants to talk about "fairness", perhaps somebody should also address the issue of many public AND private employers that currently hand out special benefits to couples (married or unmarried), but refuse to allow employees to put their blood relatives (mother, father, etc.) on their benefits program. It seems pretty hypocritcal that someone can shack up with some stranger and call that person a "domestic partner" ... but a son or daughter who cares for a parent can't even put the parent on a benefits program.

[Stumblina]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1203benefits1203-ONL.html (broken link)

So what does everyone think about this? My opinion: I would prefer that the state simply do away with ALL joint type of benefits, including those currently given to married couples. There's no legitimate reason why married couples should receive special benefits over unmarried people. However, if we must still pay out benefits to married couples, it would seem only fair to include the so called domestic partners as well.

Now, if the Governor wants to talk about "fairness", perhaps somebody should also address the issue of many public AND private employers that currently hand out special benefits to couples (married or unmarried), but refuse to allow employees to put their blood relatives (mother, father, etc.) on their benefits program. It seems pretty hypocritcal that someone can shack up with some stranger and call that person a "domestic partner" ... but a son or daughter who cares for a parent can't even put the parent on a benefits program.

In some ways, I think it's fair, but what about friends who live together for all the same reasons, except there's no "romantic" relationship involved. They're still domestic partners . . . they share the same house, help each other out, share finances, etc., but it's just a friendship. I don't think whether or not you're having sex with that person should be the determining factor for benefit eligibility. Same thing with sisters and/or brothers who share a home. There are all sorts of "families" out there today.

I totally disagree, though, with your idea of "doing away with all joint benefits." Not all households are dual income. Some women actually do stay home with their children. Some women just stay home. Actually the same can even be said for men who are "stay at home fathers," or their "better half" is the so-called bread winner of the household. Like I said, a family is a family by a much broader definition these days, and as such I believe every person in that "family" should be considered eligible for benefits. Besides, most employees now pay for part of their benefits, if not all, so they should be able to have some say in it.

On the other hand, where would employers draw the line? I mean, it could totally get out of hand. Say you lived with a family member (or even just a friend) and that person's children. Should your employer be responsible for the whole bunch?

It's a situation that I don't believe can be easily solved. The cost of healthcare in this country is skyrocketing and at the same time the quality of care is tumbling downhill.

I think my true feeling about healthcare in this country is that no one should have to be without it. No one should have to have insurance to get good quality care. Although I don't know what the answer is, I know I would never want to see socialized medicine in this country like they have in Canada. I work with many Canadians who tell me horror stories about having to wait months to get in to see a doctor. It's just not working there.

Maybe what we need to do is stop spending so much on foreign aid and look to home first. Use that money here FIRST to help people who are in need.

I don't know. Like I said, I don't think there's an easy answer, but something needs to be done.

Sorry if I wandered off topic . . .

[sheena]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1203benefits1203-ONL.html (broken link)

So what does everyone think about this? My opinion: I would prefer that the state simply do away with ALL joint type of benefits, including those currently given to married couples. There's no legitimate reason why married couples should receive special benefits over unmarried people. However, if we must still pay out benefits to married couples, it would seem only fair to include the so called domestic partners as well.

Now, if the Governor wants to talk about "fairness", perhaps somebody should also address the issue of many public AND private employers that currently hand out special benefits to couples (married or unmarried), but refuse to allow employees to put their blood relatives (mother, father, etc.) on their benefits program. It seems pretty hypocritcal that someone can shack up with some stranger and call that person a "domestic partner" ... but a son or daughter who cares for a parent can't even put the parent on a benefits program.

I agree this doesn't make any sense.

[Bummer]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

So what does everyone think about this? My opinion: I would prefer that the state simply do away with ALL joint type of benefits, including those currently given to married couples. There's no legitimate reason why married couples should receive special benefits over unmarried people. However, if we must still pay out benefits to married couples, it would seem only fair to include the so called domestic partners as well.

Now, if the Governor wants to talk about "fairness", perhaps somebody should also address the issue of many public AND private employers that currently hand out special benefits to couples (married or unmarried), but refuse to allow employees to put their blood relatives (mother, father, etc.) on their benefits program. It seems pretty hypocritcal that someone can shack up with some stranger and call that person a "domestic partner" ... but a son or daughter who cares for a parent can't even put the parent on a benefits program.

Interesting topic, Valley

If the state is seeking "fair" . . . how about a "set dollar amount" designated for benefits paid to each employee? It is then the employee's decision how and to whom that amount is applied for his or his family's (married or otherwise) benefits.

[Lakewooder]

It's easy - you get one (1) person you can name as 'partner' or whatever - the same should apply to Social Security and other benefits.

[ILuvAZ]

You want to do away with married partners benefits??? So I am married with four kids and I stay home to raise the kids... you're saying you don't think I should be covered by my husbands medical insurance??? Wow.

I worked for a co. for several years that offered medical insurance for domestic partners. There were requirements they had to meet although I'm not sure what they were. It seemed to work just fine. I would think that people who have a moral problem with the gay thing would have huge issues with this as it's like saying the state is approving.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

In the past the tradition has been to offer benefits to the family. In as much as people that are shacking up are not a family, then why offer them the benefit? People that suffer with same sex attraction and plan to live with others that are the same are just shacking up because they can not marry. Marriage is something that a man and a woman do to raise a family and build a life together. Employers know that offering the benefit to there employees makes for a happyier employee and one that is inclined to stay with the employer. No employer has to offer any benefit to any employee. They do it so they don't lose a great employee.

[Greatday]

Personally, I have no problems with this idea

[irwin]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

In the past the tradition has been to offer benefits to the family. In as much as people that are shacking up are not a family, then why offer them the benefit? People that suffer with same sex attraction and plan to live with others that are the same are just shacking up because they can not marry. Marriage is something that a man and a woman do to raise a family and build a life together. Employers know that offering the benefit to there employees makes for a happyier employee and one that is inclined to stay with the employer. No employer has to offer any benefit to any employee. They do it so they don't lose a great employee.

Suffer with same sex attraction?!? Huh?

I am sure gay people really appreciate that they are being told they are "suffering." There are plenty of gay couples that have healthy, stable relationships. What's wrong with that?

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

In the past the tradition has been to offer benefits to the family. In as much as people that are shacking up are not a family, then why offer them the benefit? People that suffer with same sex attraction and plan to live with others that are the same are just shacking up because they can not marry. Marriage is something that a man and a woman do to raise a family and build a life together. Employers know that offering the benefit to there employees makes for a happyier employee and one that is inclined to stay with the employer. No employer has to offer any benefit to any employee. They do it so they don't lose a great employee.

Whatever you call it, it is not about compassion or understanding or unchained liberalism. It is about competition for increasingly scarce employees. The draw of good benefits for unmarried pairs is very important in recruiting the best talent - regardless of their lifestyles outside the office.