AP: obama to extend federal benefits to sam sex partners

[iceturkee]

just read part of this wednesday morning but he is suppose to announce in the oval office wednesday that he is extending those benefits to sam sex partners. if someone else would post the link to the story, that would be great.

[HDRoberts]

I'm against this. Not for any anti-gay reasons, but simply because there will be sham partnerships for benefits. Whereas other people, like myself, won't do that even if we want to.

How about instead we let people name one other person of their choice, plus and biological or adopted kids, to their heath plan? Then we stop discriminating against the unmarried, not just against the gays.

[HD MM]

just read part of this wednesday morning but he is suppose to announce in the oval office wednesday that he is extending those benefits to sam sex partners. if someone else would post the link to the story, that would be great.

Your link...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/16/obama-to-extend-benefits_n_216546.html

[HD MM]

I'm against this. Not for any anti-gay reasons, but simply because there will be sham partnerships for benefits. Whereas other people, like myself, won't do that even if we want to.

How about instead we let people name one other person of their choice, plus and biological or adopted kids, to their heath plan? Then we stop discriminating against the unmarried, not just against the gays.

What exactly is it you're upset about missing out on?

Singles get these benefits if you work for the government too. It's only now extended to their spouses/partners. Why would you personally be upset about this?

[Derwin0]

From a legalistic standpoint, does he have the authority to do this?
Arn't Federal Benefits set by law? If so, an executive order can not override a law.

[HDRoberts]

What exactly is it you're upset about missing out on?

Singles get these benefits if you work for the government too. It's only now extended to their spouses/partners. Why would you personally be upset about this?

Married people (and now gay partners) get coverage for 2 or more.

Single people only get coverage for themselves. Yet we get the same pay. Thus, married people effectively get more compensation. It would be nice if single people could cover someone else, too. Like a retired parent. Or just a friend without health insurance. Or sell the coverage to someone else. Or, heck, just pay us the difference.

I find single people are among the most discriminated against. Married people tend to get preferential treatment for off time and choice of hours. A father or mother calls in sick, everybody feels sorry for them and their (maybe) sick baby. I call off, "Oh, rough night drinking?" .

Try to arrange a vacation as a single? Yeah, we need to pay more per person because we are not double occupancy, but the charges (the "single supplement) usually go above and beyond that. Then you actually go, and everyone looks at you like a leper or a pedophile because you are a single guy by yourself.

OK the first 2 paragraphs are all I was getting at in this thread, the rest is just a rant. :)

[HD MM]

Married people (and now gay partners) get coverage for 2 or more.

Single people only get coverage for themselves. Yet we get the same pay. Thus, married people effectively get more compensation. It would be nice if single people could cover someone else, too. Like a retired parent. Or just a friend without health insurance. Or sell the coverage to someone else. Or, heck, just pay us the difference.

I find single people are among the most discriminated against. Married people tend to get preferential treatment for off time and choice of hours. A father or mother calls in sick, everybody feels sorry for them and their (maybe) sick baby. I call off, "Oh, rough night drinking?" .

Try to arrange a vacation as a single? Yeah, we need to pay more per person because we are not double occupancy, but the charges (the "single supplement) usually go above and beyond that. Then you actually go, and everyone looks at you like a leper or a pedophile because you are a single guy by yourself.

OK the first 2 paragraphs are all I was getting at in this thread, the rest is just a rant. :)

Well, I just don't understand why you worry about what others are getting. You should just be concerned about yourself. :)

[HDRoberts]

Well, I just don't understand why you worry about what others are getting. You should just be concerned about yourself. :)

If you knew a coworker with the same education, experience, and seniority, not to mention the same job duties was getting paid $10k a year more than you just because they are married, that wouldn't concern you?

[HD MM]

If you knew a coworker with the same education, experience, and seniority, not to mention the same job duties was getting paid $10k a year more than you just because they are married, that wouldn't concern you?

I dunno. I guess so. Maybe I'm too easy going, but I think you're being too paranoid. How can you prove for sure you're being "discriminated" against?

[HDRoberts]

I dunno. I guess so. Maybe I'm too easy going, but I think you're being too paranoid. How can you prove for sure you're being "discriminated" against?

I'd need access to confidential info, and I'm not asking. But it still happens. It's particularly a problem in the military.

http://www.unmarried.org/unmarried-in-the-military.html

There is certainly empirical evidence to that fact for the rest of us.

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/hal/NYTimes/2004-07-29.html

[fallout2600]

Married people (and now gay partners) get coverage for 2 or more.

Single people only get coverage for themselves. Yet we get the same pay. Thus, married people effectively get more compensation. It would be nice if single people could cover someone else, too. Like a retired parent. Or just a friend without health insurance. Or sell the coverage to someone else. Or, heck, just pay us the difference.

I find single people are among the most discriminated against. Married people tend to get preferential treatment for off time and choice of hours. A father or mother calls in sick, everybody feels sorry for them and their (maybe) sick baby. I call off, "Oh, rough night drinking?" .

Try to arrange a vacation as a single? Yeah, we need to pay more per person because we are not double occupancy, but the charges (the "single supplement) usually go above and beyond that. Then you actually go, and everyone looks at you like a leper or a pedophile because you are a single guy by yourself.

OK the first 2 paragraphs are all I was getting at in this thread, the rest is just a rant. :)

Go ahead and finish crying me a river already! Single people get shafted b/c their lifestyle is different from married folks (and now same sex partners). Get over it, its not going to change any time soon. And yes, single people do tend to hang out drinking more and/or play video games, watching movies all night long b/c they have half the responsibility of folks with children. Single folks aren't chasing their kids around after work to football, baseball games, etc (which also adds to the cost of living). You need to man up and demand a raise instead of whining about your pay each week....If your pay and benefits are so bad, why haven't you quit and found another job yet? :augentreher:

[HDRoberts]

Go ahead and finish crying me a river already! Single people get shafted b/c their lifestyle is different from married folks (and now same sex partners). Get over it, its not going to change any time soon. And yes, single people do tend to hang out drinking more and/or play video games, watching movies all night long b/c they have half the responsibility of folks with children. Single folks aren't chasing their kids around after work to football, baseball games, etc (which also adds to the cost of living). You need to man up and demand a raise instead of whining about your pay each week....If your pay and benefits are so bad, why haven't you quit and found another job yet? :augentreher:

I suppose we should just tell minorities, women, and gays the same thing?

I just don't believe people should be rewarded or punished for a personal choice like marriage.

And what good is another job if they all act the same way? I like where I work now, but thee is no harm in wanting to make it better.

[fallout2600]

I suppose we should just tell minorities, women, and gays the same thing?

I just don't believe people should be rewarded or punished for a personal choice like marriage.

And what good is another job if they all act the same way? I like where I work now, but thee is no harm in wanting to make it better.

Nope, minorities benefit from affirmative action and if not married are in the same boat as singles. Women, if not married are in the same boat as single people. Men, if not married are in the same boat as single people. Now gays have the marriage benefit if they work for the govt. You are no different than those groups of people. You just want more money for the same amount of work you are doing now or feel that its unfair when you're in the same boat as the rest of the country...Also, stop fooling yourself with false justification, not all companies are the same, that is a fact. There are better benefits out there, just depends on the size and success of the company you're currently working for. If you want better pay and/or benefits, you have to go find it.

[HDRoberts]

Nope, minorities benefit from affirmative action and if not married are in the same boat as singles. Women, if not married are in the same boat as single people. Men, if not married are in the same boat as single people. Now gays have the marriage benefit if they work for the govt. You are no different than those groups of people. You just want more money for the same amount of work you are doing now or feel that its unfair when you're in the same boat as the rest of the country...Also, stop fooling yourself with false justification, not all companies are the same, that is a fact. There are better benefits out there, just depends on the size and success of the company you're currently working for. If you want better pay and/or benefits, you have to go find it.

No, blacks, women, and gays were treated unfairly, and we passed laws (like affirmative action) to protect them when they needed it.

I don't want more money for the same amount of work, I want equal money for the same amount of work.

And maybe there are better companies. I looked long and hard for this job. But if you haven't noticed, the market is not so good right now.

Why are people so against my simple proposal presented in the first reply? What is wrong with letting single people designate someone to receive health care benefits? Probably because married people are worried they will suddenly lose their preferential treatment.

[fallout2600]

Why are people so against my simple proposal presented in the first reply? What is wrong with letting single people designate someone to receive health care benefits? Probably because married people are worried they will suddenly lose their preferential treatment.

You gave the example of adding a retired parent. Last time I checked, they should be getting Social Security and Medicare if they are retired. Otherwise they retired too early without enough savings, so go back to work. Insure a friend? That's loony tunes. Tell your friend to get a job or pay for his own. This just sets up a good chance of abuse in the system that is already in place. Its got nothing to do with married couple losing preferential treatment, but it does have everything to do with personal responsibility. Its also a fact that single people tend to jump jobs at a higher rate than married people. A company can count more married folks with dependents to be a more dependable worker b/c they require more job security than single folks. You may not like that, but its a fact...

[iceturkee]

Your link...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/16/obama-to-extend-benefits_n_216546.html

thanks kind person!

[HDRoberts]

You gave the example of adding a retired parent. Last time I checked, they should be getting Social Security and Medicare if they are retired. Otherwise they retired too early without enough savings, so go back to work.

My insurance is way better than Medicare. Plenty of old people have supplemental insurance.


Insure a friend? That's loony tunes. Tell your friend to get a job or pay for his own. This just sets up a good chance of abuse in the system that is already in place.

How is it abuse? Explain.


Its got nothing to do with married couple losing preferential treatment, but it does have everything to do with personal responsibility.

Yeah, that's it, this is the one and only place people are endorsing personal responsibility.:augentreher: In that case, only employees should get health coverage, and families should not be covered. Give people real personal responsibility of their families.


Its also a fact that single people tend to jump jobs at a higher rate than married people. A company can count more married folks with dependents to be a more dependable worker b/c they require more job security than single folks. You may not like that, but its a fact...

True, but not in all cases. I've worked the same place for 3 years, and intend to stay here 27 more years. I have called of sick a total of 3 days, and each time I was legitimately sick. I think I'm dependable. Plenty of other single people are.

And plenty of married people are less dependable. Single people don't have to take off work for sick kids, kids baseball games, picking up their kids from school, etc.

[fallout2600]

Yeah, that's it, this is the one and only place people are endorsing personal responsibility.:augentreher: In that case, only employees should get health coverage, and families should not be covered. Give people real personal responsibility of their families.

I'll agree with you on this one. I think the whole employer provides insurance is wrong. I think that health insurance premiums should be brought down and each individual should be responsible for their own health care insurance. Then we can talk about the company you work for adding that cost back to your salary. Here's the deal, most young people don't need the same coverage as older people. We should be able to pay a smaller premium prices for health care, especially if we don't use it as much. It should be an individual's responsibility to get insurance, not the employer. Wages would go up as a result.

[fallout2600]

True, but not in all cases. I've worked the same place for 3 years, and intend to stay here 27 more years. I have called of sick a total of 3 days, and each time I was legitimately sick. I think I'm dependable. Plenty of other single people are.

You sure do spend a lot of time on the internet, web surfing, and posting on message boards instead of working! :)

[HDRoberts]

I'll agree with you on this one. I think the whole employer provides insurance is wrong. I think that health insurance premiums should be brought down and each individual should be responsible for their own health care insurance. Then we can talk about the company you work for adding that cost back to your salary. Here's the deal, most young people don't need the same coverage as older people. We should be able to pay a smaller premium prices for health care, especially if we don't use it as much. It should be an individual's responsibility to get insurance, not the employer. Wages would go up as a result.

That is another perfectly acceptable solution for me. I'd love to get the whole amount of money they budgeted for my salary and benefits, and just decide for myself how I want to spend it.


You sure do spend a lot of time on the internet, web surfing, and posting on message boards instead of working! :)

Pot, kettle, black. :)

[msmith198025]

You sure do spend a lot of time on the internet, web surfing, and posting on message boards instead of working! :)






Pot, kettle, black. :)

Both of you need to get a life
I would never spend so much time on a message board..... :D

[fallout2600]

Pot, kettle, black. :)

Except, I'm not complaining about my "equal" take home pay while surfing the internet instead of working!!! :)

[HDRoberts]

Except, I'm not complaining about my "equal" take home pay while surfing the internet instead of working!!! :)

No just complaining about everything Obama does.:)

[fallout2600]

No just complaining about everything Obama does.:)

HA! I think we've hijacked this thread long enough...sorry ice

[Derwin0]

I'd need access to confidential info, and I'm not asking. But it still happens. It's particularly a problem in the military.

http://www.unmarried.org/unmarried-in-the-military.htmlTalk about a slanted, and in some cases, incorrect article.


In addition, a single service member will pay an annual deductible of $50 - $100, while his or her married counterpart pays $100 - $300, regardless of family size – meaning a single service member may end up paying twice as much out of pocket for access to the same healthcare as a married counterpart with a spouse and three children. A single person wouldn't pay a dime! The active duty member themselves gets everything taken care of my the military. Only dependents fall under Tri-Care and have to pay deductibles.

On base, married service members live in family housing that affords them privacy, flexibility, and far more autonomy than that available to their single peers, who are confined to barracks or dormitoriesConfined?!? Makes it sound like a prison :05:
I've been at some duty stations where the barracks are really nice, and family housing was crap.

And I can attest to a case where living off base is better for singles than married couples.
I shared a house with a buddy in Jacksonville, NC. We both collected full BHA ownright. But a couple friends of ours were married, and since they were married, only one could get full BHA ownright.


As recently as 2006, some were earning half as much as their married counterparts This is the biggest lie in the article. Both single & married get the same pay. The only difference is when they live off base, at which time they'd get BHA (Basic Housing Allowance), which for singles (ownright) is 75% of a married persons.
But if the married person has a house on base, he gets the same exact pay as a single person, the only exception is Comrats (Commuted Rations).

[Derwin0]

From a legalistic standpoint, does he have the authority to do this?
Arn't Federal Benefits set by law? If so, an executive order can not override a law.
Evidently the lawyers told Obama what I just said.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/06/eye_opener_same-sex_partners_g.html?hpid=topnews

President Obama signed a memorandum today extending some federal benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers. The measure does not cover health care and retirement benefits.
...
They also would be allowed to take sick leave to care for a sick partner or non-biological child.
...
Still, Obama noted that by law, the government cannot grant gay couples the same range of benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.

[fallout2600]

Derwin0, interesting find. So basically, our glorious president is once again trying to over reach.

[Derwin0]

Derwin0, interesting find. So basically, our glorious president is once again trying to over reach.I don't think it's that, otherwise he would have tried giving full benefits, and not just "window dressing".

I think he's trying to pacify his gay base, which is mad at him for not overreaching his power by executively killing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act", both of which are laws and not executive orders from his predecessors.

[iceturkee]

I think he's trying to pacify his gay base, which is mad at him for not overreaching his power by executively killing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act", both of which are laws and not executive orders from his predecessors.


that's it in a nutshell and the only reason he's doing it. needless to say, i applaud any small step. but i would prefer if it were a geniune small step!

[fallout2600]

I don't think it's that, otherwise he would have tried giving full benefits, and not just "window dressing".

I think he's trying to pacify his gay base, which is mad at him for not overreaching his power by executively killing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act", both of which are laws and not executive orders from his predecessors.

Gotcha', that makes sense.