REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 36

Unbelievable: As a Lesbian Mother, I Have to Pay More For Health Care

Gays and lesbians remain separate and utterly unequal in the eyes of the law when it comes to obtaining health insurance for their families.
September 16, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

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."


Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: pregnancy, health care, lgbt, taxes, lesbian, domestic partner


Comments are closed-

Maybe it's because
Posted by: uncertain on Sep 16, 2009 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe it's because gays and lesbians take part in what is proven to be a risky lifestyle.

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

Comments are closed-

quit your bitching
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Sep 16, 2009 4:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Woman parts cost more to maintain plus you make up the difference with your Car Insurance as women get charged less. If I got a motorcycle, my insurance is going up up and UP! This is not going to stop me from my Harley. I love Lesbians as the next man and I have a soft spot in my heart for a butch boi in Wolverine Boots and flannel shirt however back to the task at hand with insurance, its not discramation, its reality like Auto Insurance. If I lived in the ghettos of New Jersey, yea my car insurance will be sky high, my heath insurance too becuase that those NJ gun Laws seem to be working very well at NOT keeping the stray bullets out of my azz.

[« 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
» RE: quit your bitching Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: quit your bitching Posted by: hms2004
» RE: quit your bitching Posted by: bornxeyed

Comments are closed-

Shall we audaciously hope
Posted by: beachcomberT on Sep 16, 2009 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that Obama puts a provision into his health care bill that ends this discriminatory taxation of same-sex benefits? Or will he cave, just as he has on abortion coverage? Still waiting for "change we can believe in." He doesn't necessarily need to repeal DOMA for this tiny step toward fairness; just insert a clause reading: "Notwithstanding the provisions of DOMA, health insurance policies of married or unmarried same-sex partners shall receive the same tax treatment as their heterosexual counterparts."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Enough of this race, gender, same sex, etc... divides. SINGLE PAYER OR ELSE !
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 16, 2009 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author could have done the readers a favor by explaining why single payer health care would put an end to this insurance divide but as usual, nothing. Just playing the social issues card again !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Corporations don't convey freedoms.
Posted by: reelectnoone on Sep 16, 2009 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"utterly unequal in the eyes of the law when it comes to obtaining health insurance for their families."

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]


Comments are closed-

I Don't Think So
Posted by: lmwilker on Sep 16, 2009 12:13 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Maybe it's because gays and lesbians take part in what is proven to be a risky lifestyle."

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-

Children don't just drop out of the sky (contrary to stork theory)
Posted by: Wendiego on Sep 16, 2009 1:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Or when a child comes along and one of them has to step away from a career and the health insurance that might come along with it?"

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-

There's also discrimination in the other direction - depends on your income
Posted by: Hans B on Sep 16, 2009 1:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article certainly points out unfair discrimination, but I know lots of lower-income people who experienced the opposite - including myself.

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]


Comments are closed-

Great Article!
Posted by: ladyoracle on Sep 16, 2009 5:29 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are right that insurance benefits for same sex families would be a non-issue if we had a government health care option for all Americans.

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-

Have we been duped about same sex marriage?
Posted by: countingdaisies on Sep 16, 2009 7:25 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All along I thought it was about two people who loved each other and wanted to be allowed to marry and share their lives together. Instead, I find out that it was all about tax advantages!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

My DP tax hit
Posted by: Bouldercreeker on Sep 16, 2009 11:00 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The tax hit for adding my DP to my health insurance plan is $200 per month.

[« 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-

Happens to non gays/lesbian as well
Posted by: MotherLodeBeth on Sep 21, 2009 6:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This isn't or should not be a gay or lesbian issue in my view. Most men and women who choose to become single parents find some hurdles when it comes to healthcare thru work. Same with those I know who inherited relatives children when the parent(s) died or went to prison. What we need is NO discrimination for anyone who has a child(ren), birth or adopted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Maybe it's because
Posted by: uncertain on Sep 16, 2009 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe it's because gays and lesbians take part in what is proven to be a risky lifestyle.

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

Comments are closed-

quit your bitching
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Sep 16, 2009 4:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Woman parts cost more to maintain plus you make up the difference with your Car Insurance as women get charged less. If I got a motorcycle, my insurance is going up up and UP! This is not going to stop me from my Harley. I love Lesbians as the next man and I have a soft spot in my heart for a butch boi in Wolverine Boots and flannel shirt however back to the task at hand with insurance, its not discramation, its reality like Auto Insurance. If I lived in the ghettos of New Jersey, yea my car insurance will be sky high, my heath insurance too becuase that those NJ gun Laws seem to be working very well at NOT keeping the stray bullets out of my azz.

[« 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
» RE: quit your bitching Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: quit your bitching Posted by: hms2004
» RE: quit your bitching Posted by: bornxeyed

Comments are closed-

Shall we audaciously hope
Posted by: beachcomberT on Sep 16, 2009 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that Obama puts a provision into his health care bill that ends this discriminatory taxation of same-sex benefits? Or will he cave, just as he has on abortion coverage? Still waiting for "change we can believe in." He doesn't necessarily need to repeal DOMA for this tiny step toward fairness; just insert a clause reading: "Notwithstanding the provisions of DOMA, health insurance policies of married or unmarried same-sex partners shall receive the same tax treatment as their heterosexual counterparts."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Enough of this race, gender, same sex, etc... divides. SINGLE PAYER OR ELSE !
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 16, 2009 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author could have done the readers a favor by explaining why single payer health care would put an end to this insurance divide but as usual, nothing. Just playing the social issues card again !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Corporations don't convey freedoms.
Posted by: reelectnoone on Sep 16, 2009 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"utterly unequal in the eyes of the law when it comes to obtaining health insurance for their families."

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]


Comments are closed-

I Don't Think So
Posted by: lmwilker on Sep 16, 2009 12:13 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Maybe it's because gays and lesbians take part in what is proven to be a risky lifestyle."

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-

Children don't just drop out of the sky (contrary to stork theory)
Posted by: Wendiego on Sep 16, 2009 1:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Or when a child comes along and one of them has to step away from a career and the health insurance that might come along with it?"

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-

There's also discrimination in the other direction - depends on your income
Posted by: Hans B on Sep 16, 2009 1:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article certainly points out unfair discrimination, but I know lots of lower-income people who experienced the opposite - including myself.

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]


Comments are closed-

Great Article!
Posted by: ladyoracle on Sep 16, 2009 5:29 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are right that insurance benefits for same sex families would be a non-issue if we had a government health care option for all Americans.

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-

Have we been duped about same sex marriage?
Posted by: countingdaisies on Sep 16, 2009 7:25 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All along I thought it was about two people who loved each other and wanted to be allowed to marry and share their lives together. Instead, I find out that it was all about tax advantages!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

My DP tax hit
Posted by: Bouldercreeker on Sep 16, 2009 11:00 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The tax hit for adding my DP to my health insurance plan is $200 per month.

[« 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-

Happens to non gays/lesbian as well
Posted by: MotherLodeBeth on Sep 21, 2009 6:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This isn't or should not be a gay or lesbian issue in my view. Most men and women who choose to become single parents find some hurdles when it comes to healthcare thru work. Same with those I know who inherited relatives children when the parent(s) died or went to prison. What we need is NO discrimination for anyone who has a child(ren), birth or adopted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS