Obama’s Quandary: Same-Sex Health Insurance
Note from the Author: Before I even begin addressing this interesting piece of news, I would like to add a disclaimer. I greatly respect that there are a variety of opinions and beliefs in this world, and I am sure that our reader base is about as diverse as diverse can get. I mean, everyone cares about health insurance right? I also respect that not everyone is going to agree with my opinion. I realize that the sensitive and largely disputed topic of same-sex marriage usually involves disturbing some sort of beehive. If you choose not to agree with what is to follow, then I encourage you to post your thoughts in the comments section.
Even if you aren’t a resident of the Golden State, you probably heard all of the controversy and buzz around California’s Prop 8 back in November of 2008. The proposition passed by voters denies the rights of same-sex couples to legally get married. For those of us who believe that marriage should be a right for all people, regardless of their sexual preference, this proposition’s passage was incredibly disappointing. Interestingly enough, however, a federal appeals court in California seems like it is trying to redeem the state’s liberal reputation.
The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and Same-Sex Partners
FEHBP, or Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, is as straightforward as it sounds: It is the health benefits program for federal employees. Currently, the FEHBP “cannot provide coverage for domestic partners or legally married partners of the same sex.” The FEHBP plans are only supposed to cover a spouse of a federal employee, who according to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.
What the appeals court in California is bringing to Obama is that same-sex partners of federal employees should be allowed health care right within FEHBP. The court is bringing this up to help address and rectify worker’s concerns and complaints.
What Will Obama Say About Same-Sex Health Insurance?
This scenario will be an interesting one to keep an eye on. I see President Obama’s view on same-sex rights a big, dizzy public relations attempt, which will balance trying to pacify those who lean toward the left while whispering in the ears of those on the right. See if this doesn’t sound conflicting — Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesperson said, “While the president opposes gay marriage, he supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. He believes this country must realize its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”
So Obama opposes gay marriage. Yet he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act? Here is what Wikipedia says about the Defense of Marriage Act:
- No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
- The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
Obviously, ‘waffle’ is the word that comes to mind upon hearing Mr. LaBolt’s response. In the next installment, we’ll take a look at the hypothetical conclusions we can draw should same-sex health benefits be passed, and what effect this will have for same-sex couples who are seeking a family health insurance plan.
You can find part two of the this series on same-sex health insurance here.
photo credit: David Jackmanson
Tags: federal defense of marriage act, gay marriage, health insurance, health reform, obama, president, same-sex health coverage
October 21st, 2009 at 6:14 pm
[...] « Obama’s Quandary: Same-Sex Health Insurance [...]
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
I think it’s unfair that gay couples are going to be able to get coverage, yet I cannot get coverage for my kids once they turn 19 unless they are in school. We can’t afford for our son to go to school and he’s working varied hours and we are thankful for the hours he gets, even if it’s sometimes 2 or 3 hours a day. He lives with us and we have to pay for his health insurance, but we have to buy a separate policy for him. He can no longer be on my husband’s family policy because of his age…I think this is worse than gays trying to get insurance. Why don’t they do what most families do when their kids get to be 19 and not in college, buy an independent plan for their “partner.” All this is going to do is raise everyone else’s insurance premiums to help gays with their insurance. In addition, our insurance policy states that our insurance premiums are higher because we have to pay for people that can’t afford insurance, plus our taxes pay for a ton of state and federal programs for people without insurance. I told my husband we need to make less money so we can get better coverage under these programs. I was overwhelmed by all the help for people of all kinds of different circumstances. No wonder our taxes are so high in California. We make a decent living, but we have 3 separate health plans, I have a disabling disease that requires two pain meds that cost together $3,000/month if I don’t have health insurance. That’s not including the other 14 prescriptions I have to take. I’m on my husband’s COBRA and pay $480 just for myself. We pay for our 20 year old’s own policy (since he’s over 19 and can’t be on my husbands), then we have an individual policy for my husband and youngest son. It was cheaper to get an individual policy than go with what his employer offered. Unfortunately I can’t be on his policy because they don’t cover some of the medications I require. We are paying for my disease, plus my 20 year old had lung surgery and one month in the hospital due to Valley Fever, which collapsed his lung, then he spent 3 months having IV antifungal meds as an outpatient. So even though we make a decent living ($90,000 before taxes), by the time our premiums, deductibles and copays for medical and prescriptions, we are in the poverty level…yet there are no federal or state programs to help us.