The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Obama to extended some benefits to gay federal workers, but not full health benefits
Dalboz
Resident Puppy EaterRight behind you...Registered User regular
Resident Puppy EaterRight behind you...Registered User regular
I was going to post this to the gay marriage thread since I wasn't sure this deserved it's own thread, but it appears to have been locked.
Anyway, according to a blurb from the AP, Obama plans to extend health care and other benefits to the gay and lesbian partners of federal employees. At the moment, details are sketchy, but a full announcement with details are expected on Wednesday.
This could be finally indicating a change on a federal level, and the beginning of a push nationally to recognize and legitimize (i.e., allow marriage) of same-sex couples. We'll see how far this extends or what the ultimate effect or plan for this may be.
Update: Obama extends SOME benefits, but stops short of full health benefits, saying that legislation is needed. Critics are up in arms.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/17/obama.gay.critics/index.html
Anyway, according to a blurb from the AP, Obama plans to extend health care and other benefits to the gay and lesbian partners of federal employees. At the moment, details are sketchy, but a full announcement with details are expected on Wednesday.
This could be finally indicating a change on a federal level, and the beginning of a push nationally to recognize and legitimize (i.e., allow marriage) of same-sex couples. We'll see how far this extends or what the ultimate effect or plan for this may be.
Update: Obama extends SOME benefits, but stops short of full health benefits, saying that legislation is needed. Critics are up in arms.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/17/obama.gay.critics/index.html
Dalboz on
0
Posts
but they're listening to every word I say
Why? My employer allows it and they're doing fine.
I thought DOMA just said that the states didn't have to recognize the butt buddies? That should mean that the federal government however, can recognize butt buddies when it comes to their own employees, but the federal government just can't force the states to recognize them as being married.
Good stuff.
You pay more to extend benefits to other people. I could insure a "partner" under my plan, regardless of who it was. Since I would have to pay more I don't really see how that is bad.
but they're listening to every word I say
DOMA is presently preventing married gay couples in Iowa and New England (talk about a queer pair) from receiving Federal benefits. It has broader implications than just reciprocity, which this would seem to fly in the face of.
Extending benefits to gay couples is great, extending benefits to anyone you'd like could cost the government a good deal of money.
What I am saying is corporations do it and it seems to turn out alright.
but they're listening to every word I say
Again, it's not as large an impact as you think. My employer allows you to register a "domestic partner" rather than a spouse as a joint beneficiary on a health care plan, and I've used it to get health care for my (opposite sex) fiancee. They need to meet some set of criteria (have lived at the same residence for at least six months, not legally married to anyone, consider their finances linked, have no other people who could qualify as domestic partners by this definition, etc.) and sign an affidavit to that effect, which cuts down on extending benefits to "anyone you like".
Considering Obama is wanting to extend the option of Federal Employee benefits to any citizens as a valid competitor to the existing HMO's etc, I'm not sure you can really count that as a negative.
The plans that the Federal government offer are most likely more than enough to cover their outlay. The reason that private insurance is expensive is because insurers are greedy, not because insurance is so expensive to provide. This is especially true the more people you have buying into a plan.
I used to live in a province that had state/provincial auto insurance, instead of private insurance. The rates were less than half of the private insurers of other provinces, and the province had to keep cutting refund checks to all the citizens because they kept coming in under budget.
MWO: Adamski
I've wanted that shit in Ontario for ages. Fucking Car Insurance companies are becoming bigger assholes every year.
How much does it turn out to be a month?
but they're listening to every word I say
Under public insurance, at the time it was $75/month, under private insurance, I think it went up to $175/month. That was for the same deductable, age group, etc etc.
MWO: Adamski
There's no mixed messages. It's just some stuff is being put on the backburner as other things are handled.
This change, as I understand it, requires nothing but signing some paper on Obama's part, so he throws it out there.
Plus, his health care reform may involve some sort of extending of these federal employee benefits to anyone who wants them, this may be a test/laying the groundwork.
*Children in this case meaning 16 year olds.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
I remember there being something about DADT, but that was largely "Yes, DADT is still law".
The DOMA thing I remember being largely "Yes, DOMA is constitutional in our opinion".
But I'm not familiar with alot of the legalese in these things.
You live in BC?
ICBC (auto insurance) is about $65-75 for us / month and I always considered it high, I can't imagine private being more than double.
I think this is a step in the right direction. With my company if you live with someone for more than 6 months you can enroll them in your benefits plan, man or woman.
Funny coincidence.... GEICO actually stands for Government Employees Insurance Company....
or strike it down or whatever.
either Congress repealing it or a Supreme Court decision striking it down (most likely) on the Full Faith and Credit clause.
Also, the 14th Amendment.
It's more likely that Congress will act than SCOTUS given the current bench.
I keep telling my Representatives that they should outlaw Short Titles.
My old employer did that, too. I used it to get my girlfriend on my health insurance.
BTW, health insurance benefits paid out through these programs are federally taxable, too. The difference is sizable, and can be basically a triple whammy. (First, they come out of post-tax rather than pre-tax income. That means that instead of lowering your tax burden like spousal benefits would, they raise your tax burden. Second, the employer-paid portion is considered a taxable benefit. So now your taxes are even higher - and you're paying taxes on money that you, effectively, never see.)
You could make the argument that this unfairly discriminates against gay people, and you'd be right. That's a tangent though. The point is that the argument "extending benefits to anyone you'd like could cost the government a good deal of money" is a non-starter because with the way the tax laws are structured right now, the federal government makes hundreds of dollars more per year per person on DP benefits than they do on spousal benefits.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Question.
Are people in the military federal employees?
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
ish. There's certain other issues with that that get raised here. It's gonna be a bearfight.
It's a good step, but we're sadly a long way away from me being able to marry my dog.
No, they aren't.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/politics/17gays.html?ref=us
Because we're OK with being gay, but it's still a little icky.
If this is what they're going to announce I will be very disappointed.
How does that still not violate DOMA?
I think the Federal Goverment should do this as an employer. It's a benefit offered by many (most?) large companies in order to attract good workers. It should apply to unmarried heterosexuals in the same way, which is why I think they are going the wrong way on this.
I think this should be a mirror of many private companies' domestic partnership guidelines, which include medical, dental, the whole shebang.
But then again, maybe I missed something.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/17/obama.gay.critics/index.html
It's the usual. They want it all and want it now. Whatever.