Same sex life partner health insurance coverage

[alan1]

This year, for the first time ever, my employer is offering same sex life partner health insurance coverage.

As I was scrolling through the details of the various health insurance options, I discovered something I found to be quite interesting.
If you elect coverage for a same sex partner, that money is not considered pre-tax. Unlike if you elect coverage for a spouse or children which is pre-tax.

Is this a standard practice for companies to do?

 

[Amanda]

I don't know if it's a standard practice but I'd say it's another reason to get civil unions for all passed into law.

 

[alan1]

Or perhaps it is actually tax code. Does anybody know?
The fact that health insurance payments can be pre-tax means they have to qualify under some sort of tax code.

 

[xotoxi]

I'm not sure. See if opposite-sex unmarried partners are covered in the same way.

If they also are not considered pre-tax, then it likely has something to do with the tax benefits of marriage.

 

[goldcatt]

I want to say it's the Federal tax code, since DOMA eliminates all Federal benefits for unmarrieds. But I'm no tax expert, that's just an educated guess.

 

[alan1]

I'm not sure. See if opposite-sex unmarried partners are covered in the same way.

If they also are not considered pre-tax, then it likely has something to do with the tax benefits of marriage.

Opposite-sex married people are covered pre-tax. Opposite-sex partners are not covered at all.

Biological children are covered pre-tax. Children of a same-sex partner (not the employees biological children) are not covered pre-tax.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Opposite sex partners are not covered at all".

So this is an example of trampling upon the rights of heteroxsexual couples. Lovely.

 

[Amanda]

"Opposite sex partners are not covered at all".

So this is an example of trampling upon the rights of heteroxsexual couples. Lovely.

That's why I made my comment above. Why do same sex employees get to just designate someone to be covered if single opposite sex employees can't do the same thing?

If people are going to be treated fairly we need to make it possible to do so.

 

[alan1]

"Opposite sex partners are not covered at all".

So this is an example of trampling upon the rights of heteroxsexual couples. Lovely.

A few people at work brought that up. Every one of them that said anything to me about it though, was married.

 

[slackjawed]

"Opposite sex partners are not covered at all".

So this is an example of trampling upon the rights of heteroxsexual couples. Lovely.

That's why I made my comment above. Why do same sex employees get to just designate someone to be covered if single opposite sex employees can't do the same thing?

If people are going to be treated fairly we need to make it possible to do so.

I'm all for equal rights, but this seems like special rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not sure. See if opposite-sex unmarried partners are covered in the same way.

If they also are not considered pre-tax, then it likely has something to do with the tax benefits of marriage.

I want to say that's probably it. Your employer can decide to pay for anyone they want to be on your health insurance, but only the IRS can decide to make something pre-tax, and you have to meet certain criteria for that, like being married or legal dependents, etc.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not sure. See if opposite-sex unmarried partners are covered in the same way.

If they also are not considered pre-tax, then it likely has something to do with the tax benefits of marriage.

Opposite-sex married people are covered pre-tax. Opposite-sex partners are not covered at all.

Biological children are covered pre-tax. Children of a same-sex partner (not the employees biological children) are not covered pre-tax.

And legally adopted children are probably also covered pre-tax, right?

 

[midcan5]

Make them suffer too, let them marry. LOL


Health benefits for same-sex marriages and domestic partners - SmartMedicalConsumer Wiki

 

[alan1]

I'm not sure. See if opposite-sex unmarried partners are covered in the same way.

If they also are not considered pre-tax, then it likely has something to do with the tax benefits of marriage.

Opposite-sex married people are covered pre-tax. Opposite-sex partners are not covered at all.

Biological children are covered pre-tax. Children of a same-sex partner (not the employees biological children) are not covered pre-tax.

And legally adopted children are probably also covered pre-tax, right?

Yes.
That would be a loophole I guess. You could let your same-sex partner legally adopt the children and get them covered pre-tax.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Opposite-sex married people are covered pre-tax. Opposite-sex partners are not covered at all.

Biological children are covered pre-tax. Children of a same-sex partner (not the employees biological children) are not covered pre-tax.

And legally adopted children are probably also covered pre-tax, right?

Yes.
That would be a loophole I guess. You could let your same-sex partner legally adopt the children and get them covered pre-tax.

Well, I was thinking more in terms of regular adoptions - we can't have children biologically, so we adopt one - but yeah, I suppose that would work.

 

[alan1]

And legally adopted children are probably also covered pre-tax, right?

Yes.
That would be a loophole I guess. You could let your same-sex partner legally adopt the children and get them covered pre-tax.

Well, I was thinking more in terms of regular adoptions - we can't have children biologically, so we adopt one - but yeah, I suppose that would work.

The realization that it was a loophole came to me after reading your question.

 

[auditor0007]

I love this. Since I can't get health insurance myself, and I don't plan on marrying my girlfriend, I guess I continue to go without insurance. But wait, if I dump my girlfriend and get a boyfriend, then I can get on his insurance. Alright, now all I need to do is become gay.