DP benefits are issues of health & justice, not orientation (updated)
Thanks to Jonathan for sending me the great news that Google will cover the extra tax costs for employees with same-sex partners whose domestic partner benefits coverage is treated as taxable income (unlike spousal benefits). It is infuriating that Google would level the playing field only for same-sex partners, leaving different-sex partners to pay more or “just get married.” This is one of my biggest pet peeves, and here is (a corrected version of) what I posted as a comment on the New York Times blog about the story.
As reported by HRC, Google extends benefits to the domestic partners of both same- and different-sex employees (as do 95% of companies that offer DP benefits).
According the US Census Bureau, there are three times as many different-sex unmarried partner households in the San Francisco – Oakland – Fremont Metro Area workforce than same-sex ones. Nationwide, different-sex partners comprise 88.6% of the 6.15 million households headed by cohabiting couples. In a 2006 study, Badgett of the Williams Institute (who is quoted in the main article) wrote that “people with different-sex partners who have domestic partner coverage [currently] outnumber the same-sex partners with domestic partner coverage by a nine to one margin” and that, if all US employers offered DP benefits, “out of every thousand employees, on average only one to four would sign up a same-sex partner, and another 13–21 would sign up a different-sex partner.”
This is not a “gay” issue, it is a public health and social justice issue. Again quoting Badgett, “Gay men and lesbians in couples are more likely to be uninsured than are married heterosexuals, and people with unmarried different-sex partners are the least likely to be insured.” In addition, different-sex partners are also more likely to be people of color, and to have lower incomes, than married or same-sex couples. (More on unmarried people’s access to health care.)
What a company as rich as Google should do is convert its entire family benefits structure to a plus-one model, in which every employee has an equal right to extend benefits to her/his economic dependents, children up to age 26 (per new federal law) plus one non-dependent adult regardless of relationship type.
Google’s new subsidy policy is a ridiculously wrong-headed move that will surely antagonize it’s workforce and should hurt its global reputation.
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:03 pm
What about people who don’t have health care coverage and aren’t lucky enough to be chosen as someone’s “plus one” beneficiary? “Plus one” still seems to be a form of relationship status discrimination that we all subsidize through higher taxes, higher prices, lower wages, and that some will still not benefit from — the left-out people end up subsidizing an ever-expanding pool of lucky duckies (couples and “plus one” beneficiaries) but never get a mention by an organization that claims to support all singles.
July 4th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Great work, Nicky!
July 6th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Jim, AtMP has long stated it’s preference for a single payer system that gives every individual equally direct and affordable access to health care. As long as we’re stuck with an employer-based model that will never provide universal health care, AtMP will keep suggesting ways that this unfair system can be made a bit more fair.
July 6th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
“In addition, different-sex partners are also more likely to be people of color, and to have lower incomes, than married or same-sex couples. ”
Huh?? This statement alone makes me render this source as unreliable. So unmarried couples tend to be predominately people of color”(read Black or Hispanic) ? In America, I can’t see how minority singles outnumber white singles. As long as over 12 percent of the white population is single, singles of color will never outnumber them….ever… And I know this country is more than 12 percent white singles
July 7th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Angela, you read too much into that sentence (I did the same thing with the original article, so I totally empathize)! It is true that unmarried people are more likely to be black or Hispanic than married people are likely to be black or Hispanic, etc. For more stats, see http://www.unmarried.org/statistics.html and http://www.unmarried.org/briefingkit.html
July 11th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Nicky, the problem is, it is not a bit more fair. Its a step backwards. Like I said, as the pool of beneficiaries expands, the ones left behind (already the least priveleged — the uncoupled single — ends up paying the benefits of an ever larger pool of beneficiaries.
It used to be that as an uncoupled single, I was only expected to pay for the benefits of married couples. Then I learned that ATMP wants me to pay for the benefits of “domestic partners” as well. Now I see that ATMP expects me to pay for the benefits of “plus one” beneficiaries as well.
As more and more “relationships” qualify for benefits, the bill for this expanded pool of benefits grows larger and larger, and falls more and more heavily on those who are left behind.
Its like what if as a result of the 1955-56 Montgomery bus boycott, some “National Association For The Advancement of Non-White People” successfully pushed for the right for Hispanics to be treated the same as Whites (while pretending Blacks didn’t even exist). To a Hispanic that might seem to be an improvement in social justice — but with the major negative side effect that Blacks would not only have to give up their seats for Whites, as before, but now they would have to give up their seats to Hispanics as well. While the situation of Hispanics improves, the situation of Blacks worsens by an equal amount. How is that a bit more fair?
I too feel like I’m being asked to give up my seat for more and more people. And unlike the above analogy, I don’t see any logical incremental path to improvement that will one day include me. Instead I see MarriageMania giving way to CouplaMania; and sometimes more broadly to CertainPrivelegedRelationshipsOnlyMania.
Actually, when the least priveleged group is asked to foot the bill of a more priveleged group, that is a step backward in social justice.
It is especially galling that the people victimized by ATMP policy are proportionally more often people of color (least likely percentage-wise to be part of a married couple or of a domestic partnership or being close to someone who has “Plus One” benefits to donate.).
It also bothers me a lot that ATMP, in favoring some policy, never mentions the downside — the uncoupled singles (proportionally more often people of color and women) who will be hurt by it. Its always “the solution is domestic partnership benefits equal to married couple benefits” or “the solution is plus one benefits” without a hint that there is a social injustice downside — and fostering an evil system of relationship status apartheid.
August 4th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Jim is correct it is unfair that insurance is doled out to mainly couples and their children through employers throughout this country and he has to pay for it. However as long as we must play in the framework of our present insurance system the more people who are covered by employers the better.
Jim you are being screwed in the same way that two income households are because they both have coverage that they could use for their partner but can’t use two insurance providers.
The system is not fair but either is the benefit. One person will use more of it (get sick) while the rest pay the bills. If that person doesn’t pay insurance ironically the bills are more and we all end up paying anyway. That’s not really fair either.
I am one of the 5% who has a opposite sex DP but I’m not covered on her insurance. If we were same sex I would be covered unfortunately I’m not willing to go that route.
There is no fair insurance system and I’m sure single payer won’t be fair either but it certainly would be better than what we have.
August 9th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Unfortunately, benefits don’t grow on trees. When employers expand benefits for certain groups, it costs them money — that ultimately must come from some combinations of higher prices, and lower wages and benefits for their other workers compared to what they otherwise might be. The left-behinds are negatively impacted. Likewise when government expands benefits for certain groups, that ultimately must be paid in the form of higher taxes — the left-behinds are negatively impacted by that too. I think I explained that very well in my previous post (July 11) — its the least priveleged being asked to pay benefits for the better off. Its a step backwards in fairness, equity, and social justice.
I am sick and tired of being told that I have to fork over more and more of my money to pay for everyone else’s benefits, while ATMP, which supposedly advocates for fairness for all people, pretend we unmarried non-DP types don’t even exist, and that all problems would be solved if only all DP’s got benefits.
What if employers and governments started to pay for benefits for single Whites (but not single Blacks), or for single men (but not single women). Would you just shrug your shoulders and say, well, the system is unfair in many other ways, so who cares if Blacks or women are extra-screwed? And would you just shrug your shoulders and say that’s the best we can do given the framework of our employer-based health care system? Or would you say, no it isn’t. Everyone, be they black, white, gay, straight, male, female, coupled or uncoupled, have the same right to benefits?
Why can’t ATMP advocate that every employee gets the same total dollar value of benefits from their employer, regardless of marital or relationship status? That can be done under our current system. I believe most employers these days have some form of flexible or cafeteria style benefits where you can move benefit dollars from one category to another.
Brendan} Jim you are being screwed in the same way that two income households are because they both have coverage that they could use for their partner but can’t use two insurance providers.{
I don’t get this. They are being screwed because they can’t double dip? Because they can’t be “double insured”? That’s a lot different than not having health insurance at all, or having to purchase it on the individual market at exorbitant prices, assuming one can get it at all (no serious pre-existing conditions).