COMMENTS: 36
Unbelievable: As a Lesbian Mother, I Have to Pay More For Health Care
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.
They say parenthood changes you in ways you’d never expect. As a gay parent, I’ve found that to be doubly true in at least one particularly surprising way: Being a parent has turned me into a warrior -- a warrior for health care reform.
To be honest, before I had my child I was hardly riveted to the ups and downs of this most recent version of our national health care debate. I’ve been pro-universal health care for my entire adult life -- in part, perhaps, because I spent half of my 20s without any health insurance to speak of -- but watching the pols jaw their way around the details of this one was more than I could bear. The lines drawn had become so partisan that all I could do was shake my head and hope for a fair outcome. Until, that is, I found myself facing the gated community that is American health care from the outside looking in.
Here’s what happened: I got pregnant. I had a baby. And -- for reasons both practical and personal -- I stopped working for an employer full-time. Which was when I learned everything I needed to know (and more) about how gays and lesbians remain separate and utterly unequal in the eyes of the law when it comes to obtaining health insurance for their families.
Over the past decade, more and more companies have begun offering their employees domestic partner benefits -- ostensibly an opportunity for unmarried couples (of the same or opposite sex) to share in an employer’s health care plan as legally married couples do. As of 2008, in fact, 285 of Fortune magazine’s top 500 companies were offering employees this option. And late last summer, after some hard lobbying on my partner J’s part, her company joined their ranks, announcing that DP benefits would now be available to all employees, and their families, as well.
J and I celebrated and felt blessed to be in a position where it seemed we could make decisions for our growing family just like our heterosexual friends. When it came time to read the not-so-fine print, however, we were stunned to realize that “equal access" was a complete distortion of what these domestic partner benefits offered. Yes, we could all be on the same plan if need be, but unlike our heterosexual, married friends, we would be taxed -- and heavily -- for the privilege.
Few people -- gay or straight -- realize that there are significant tax consequences that attach to DP benefits. As one human resource professional explained it:
Domestic partner benefits may be taxed differently than married couples benefits. In general, no tax consequence follows for the family when an employer provides health insurance for the employee’s spouse and legal dependents. However, an employee whose domestic partner receives health benefits would normally include the cost of those benefits as taxable income.
In other words, if you’re a married heterosexual and put your family on your company’s health plan you get the double benefit of health insurance coverage and freedom from taxation on the value of that plan, although it’s technically “income" by IRS standards. But if you’re unmarried, you get no such forgiveness by the IRS -- the value of that health care coverage for your partner (and any pre-tax contribution to the plan) is instead calculated as income by the IRS and summarily taxed.
Even in those few states that allow gay and lesbian couples to wed the situation is little better, since those marriages aren’t recognized by either the federal government or the IRS. So claiming the benefit means seeing significantly less money in your paycheck than your married peers -- so much less, in many cases, as to make the possibility of choosing domestic partner benefits completely untenable. Many unmarried straight couples take one look at the difference the tax burden makes in their take home pay and hasten themselves to the county clerk’s office or chapel, to make their partnerships legal. But for families like mine, no such option exists whether or not our state allows us to marry. The federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996) made sure of that by “[rendering] invalid most state or local tax provisions for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families for the purpose of federal taxes."
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: uncertain on Sep 16, 2009 3:52 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People will talk shit about smokers and say they should be denied coverage or pay a higher premium than non-smokers because of choices they've made. Why should it be any different for someone that engages in an equally risky life choice?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Maybe it's because
Posted by: cmaciain
» Or perhaps you're wrong
Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Maybe it's because, what??
Posted by: elsielyn
» Lesbians have less risky lifestyles.
Posted by: thedevil666
» RE: Maybe it's because....that's just dumb!
Posted by: MindyB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Sep 16, 2009 4:38 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: quit your bitching
Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: quit your bitching
Posted by: mandiwrite
» yes Woman Parts
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» Yes, why do the children get punished because of who their parents are?
Posted by: SayBlade
» RE: Yes, why do the children get punished because of who their parents are?
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: quit your bitching
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: quit your bitching
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: quit your bitching
Posted by: bornxeyed
» Who cares why she is unmarried, it is marital status that is the issue
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beachcomberT on Sep 16, 2009 5:26 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Shall we audaciously hope
Posted by: hms2004
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 16, 2009 7:29 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: nough of this race, gender, same sex, etc... divides. SINGLE PAYER OR ELSE !
Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: nough of this race, gender, same sex, etc... divides. SINGLE PAYER OR ELSE !
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelectnoone on Sep 16, 2009 8:19 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is why I say we must have public option. People fight reform citing "freedom of choice" but to those I say that corporations do not convey any freedoms at all...they just sell you stuff and sometimes you can't afford what they sell so you do without. That is a "freedom" only for those with the cash.
Only government can provide an actual "freedom" and a public option that anyone can access is a true freedom of choice between that option and whatever the private for-profit companies wish to offer.
The big insurance companies have never kept any of their promises and will never do so as long as they pull all the strings. That is not freedom by any definition.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Corporations don't convey freedoms.
Posted by: koolwoman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lmwilker on Sep 16, 2009 12:13 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What exactly is the Lesbians' "risky lifestyle?" Lesbians have a lower rate of STDs than any other cohort group. Is their "risky lifestyle" the risk of getting beaten up by gay bashers such as the person who posted the deeply ignorant comment quoted above.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Wendiego on Sep 16, 2009 1:17 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prepare and plan your parenthood... that's what birth control is for. Also, there is always the option of being a working parent.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Hans B on Sep 16, 2009 1:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When one of the two partners - or both - has unemployment benefits, social security, food stamps, single-parent allowance or whatever other benefit created for the poor, marriage means a big step backwards. Such benefits are lost. In fact just living together can be difficult for lower-income heterosexuals: being registered at the same address means that government services will assume you have a love affair, and cut your benefits. At best you will face humiliating visits, when a total stranger checks how many beds there are, whether men's and women's clothing are in the same closet, whether the toothbrushes are in the same glass.
Homosexual couples do not have this problem: same-sex people who share a home are assumed to be housemates or friends, no questions asked. No cuts in benefits, intrusive visits, or the continual fear thereof.
It's a general rule that government recognition of love relationships - be it marriage, civil union or simply cohabitation - is a bad thing for lower-income people: it makes them even poorer. The opposite is true for the better-off: marriage or civil union increases their already comfortable income. In short, love leads to greater income inequality.
It shouldn't, and that's why I think that instead of giving gays the same rights as straights, we should do the opposite and put heterosexuals in the same position as homosexuals. Non-government interference in love lives should be the rule, not the exception. Sharing a bed and a home should neither be rewarded nor punished in financial terms, and certainly not rewarded for the well-off and punished for the poor as is the case in most developed countries today.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There's also discrimination in the other direction - depends on your income
Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: There's also discrimination in the other direction - depends on your income
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ladyoracle on Sep 16, 2009 5:29 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How awesome would that be if an equality would be extended to all Americans for a right to health care, which would level a playing field for all families in that regard. Really smart argument, and don't listen to all the heteronormative trolls on this comment scroll.
Then the gay community and its allies could better focus its energy instead of getting one company at a time to review its policy on the subject.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: countingdaisies on Sep 16, 2009 7:25 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No, it's about love, sharing lives, and tax equity!
Posted by: Bouldercreeker
» RE: No, it's about love, sharing lives, and tax equity!
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bouldercreeker on Sep 16, 2009 11:00 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: My DP tax hit
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MotherLodeBeth on Sep 21, 2009 6:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: uncertain on Sep 16, 2009 3:52 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People will talk shit about smokers and say they should be denied coverage or pay a higher premium than non-smokers because of choices they've made. Why should it be any different for someone that engages in an equally risky life choice?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Maybe it's because
Posted by: cmaciain
» Or perhaps you're wrong
Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Maybe it's because, what??
Posted by: elsielyn
» Lesbians have less risky lifestyles.
Posted by: thedevil666
» RE: Maybe it's because....that's just dumb!
Posted by: MindyB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Sep 16, 2009 4:38 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: quit your bitching
Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: quit your bitching
Posted by: mandiwrite
» yes Woman Parts
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» Yes, why do the children get punished because of who their parents are?
Posted by: SayBlade
» RE: Yes, why do the children get punished because of who their parents are?
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: quit your bitching
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: quit your bitching
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: quit your bitching
Posted by: bornxeyed
» Who cares why she is unmarried, it is marital status that is the issue
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beachcomberT on Sep 16, 2009 5:26 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Shall we audaciously hope
Posted by: hms2004
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 16, 2009 7:29 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: nough of this race, gender, same sex, etc... divides. SINGLE PAYER OR ELSE !
Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: nough of this race, gender, same sex, etc... divides. SINGLE PAYER OR ELSE !
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelectnoone on Sep 16, 2009 8:19 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is why I say we must have public option. People fight reform citing "freedom of choice" but to those I say that corporations do not convey any freedoms at all...they just sell you stuff and sometimes you can't afford what they sell so you do without. That is a "freedom" only for those with the cash.
Only government can provide an actual "freedom" and a public option that anyone can access is a true freedom of choice between that option and whatever the private for-profit companies wish to offer.
The big insurance companies have never kept any of their promises and will never do so as long as they pull all the strings. That is not freedom by any definition.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Corporations don't convey freedoms.
Posted by: koolwoman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lmwilker on Sep 16, 2009 12:13 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What exactly is the Lesbians' "risky lifestyle?" Lesbians have a lower rate of STDs than any other cohort group. Is their "risky lifestyle" the risk of getting beaten up by gay bashers such as the person who posted the deeply ignorant comment quoted above.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Wendiego on Sep 16, 2009 1:17 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prepare and plan your parenthood... that's what birth control is for. Also, there is always the option of being a working parent.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Hans B on Sep 16, 2009 1:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When one of the two partners - or both - has unemployment benefits, social security, food stamps, single-parent allowance or whatever other benefit created for the poor, marriage means a big step backwards. Such benefits are lost. In fact just living together can be difficult for lower-income heterosexuals: being registered at the same address means that government services will assume you have a love affair, and cut your benefits. At best you will face humiliating visits, when a total stranger checks how many beds there are, whether men's and women's clothing are in the same closet, whether the toothbrushes are in the same glass.
Homosexual couples do not have this problem: same-sex people who share a home are assumed to be housemates or friends, no questions asked. No cuts in benefits, intrusive visits, or the continual fear thereof.
It's a general rule that government recognition of love relationships - be it marriage, civil union or simply cohabitation - is a bad thing for lower-income people: it makes them even poorer. The opposite is true for the better-off: marriage or civil union increases their already comfortable income. In short, love leads to greater income inequality.
It shouldn't, and that's why I think that instead of giving gays the same rights as straights, we should do the opposite and put heterosexuals in the same position as homosexuals. Non-government interference in love lives should be the rule, not the exception. Sharing a bed and a home should neither be rewarded nor punished in financial terms, and certainly not rewarded for the well-off and punished for the poor as is the case in most developed countries today.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There's also discrimination in the other direction - depends on your income
Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: There's also discrimination in the other direction - depends on your income
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ladyoracle on Sep 16, 2009 5:29 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How awesome would that be if an equality would be extended to all Americans for a right to health care, which would level a playing field for all families in that regard. Really smart argument, and don't listen to all the heteronormative trolls on this comment scroll.
Then the gay community and its allies could better focus its energy instead of getting one company at a time to review its policy on the subject.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: countingdaisies on Sep 16, 2009 7:25 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No, it's about love, sharing lives, and tax equity!
Posted by: Bouldercreeker
» RE: No, it's about love, sharing lives, and tax equity!
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bouldercreeker on Sep 16, 2009 11:00 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: My DP tax hit
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MotherLodeBeth on Sep 21, 2009 6:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Updated: Catholic Bishops Embrace Anti-Abortion Terrorizers Missy Smith and Randall Terry
10 Defining Feminist Moments of 2009
Going Undercover in the Crazy, Tragic World of Christian Gay-Conversion Therapy




