http://ushealthnews.mercer.com/article/4...i-sOH6rTcs

Have already heard many large companies during this annual enrollment period now will only offer the former domestic partner benefits to legally married couples including same sex marriage couples.
I wonder if many saw this coming .
It makes perfect sense if opposite sex partners living together wouldn't receive those same benefits. I'm sure other changes outside of Medical benefits will also fall away as a result of the same sex marriage law.

(10-27-2015 12:08 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  http://ushealthnews.mercer.com/article/4...i-sOH6rTcs

Have already heard many large companies during this annual enrollment period now will only offer the former domestic partner benefits to legally married couples including same sex marriage couples.
I wonder if many saw this coming .
It makes perfect sense if opposite sex partners living together wouldn't receive those same benefits. I'm sure other changes outside of Medical benefits will also fall away as a result of the same sex marriage law.

That is fair. Now that every couple can access the benefits via marriage, its entirely fair for the extra benefits to be limited in that way.

That being said, its ridiculous that health care cover in the US is run through employers.

(10-27-2015 12:08 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  http://ushealthnews.mercer.com/article/4...i-sOH6rTcs

Have already heard many large companies during this annual enrollment period now will only offer the former domestic partner benefits to legally married couples including same sex marriage couples.
I wonder if many saw this coming .
It makes perfect sense if opposite sex partners living together wouldn't receive those same benefits. I'm sure other changes outside of Medical benefits will also fall away as a result of the same sex marriage law.

That's really kind of surprising. I guess it is an effort to cut costs. But those programs were put in place to reflect that we have many non-traditional living arrangements, not just gay couples.

(10-27-2015 12:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:08 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  http://ushealthnews.mercer.com/article/4...i-sOH6rTcs

Have already heard many large companies during this annual enrollment period now will only offer the former domestic partner benefits to legally married couples including same sex marriage couples.
I wonder if many saw this coming .
It makes perfect sense if opposite sex partners living together wouldn't receive those same benefits. I'm sure other changes outside of Medical benefits will also fall away as a result of the same sex marriage law.

That is fair. Now that every couple can access the benefits via marriage, its entirely fair for the extra benefits to be limited in that way.

That being said, its ridiculous that health care cover in the US is run through employers.

But it is in many cases the Only way many people can afford health care .

(10-27-2015 12:40 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:08 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  http://ushealthnews.mercer.com/article/4...i-sOH6rTcs

Have already heard many large companies during this annual enrollment period now will only offer the former domestic partner benefits to legally married couples including same sex marriage couples.
I wonder if many saw this coming .
It makes perfect sense if opposite sex partners living together wouldn't receive those same benefits. I'm sure other changes outside of Medical benefits will also fall away as a result of the same sex marriage law.

That is fair. Now that every couple can access the benefits via marriage, its entirely fair for the extra benefits to be limited in that way.

That being said, its ridiculous that health care cover in the US is run through employers.

But it is in many cases the Only way many people can afford health care .

Actually there's probably a lot more people that would be better off (financially speaking) if there employer didn't offer insurance due to Obamacare

(10-27-2015 12:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:08 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  http://ushealthnews.mercer.com/article/4...i-sOH6rTcs

Have already heard many large companies during this annual enrollment period now will only offer the former domestic partner benefits to legally married couples including same sex marriage couples.
I wonder if many saw this coming .
It makes perfect sense if opposite sex partners living together wouldn't receive those same benefits. I'm sure other changes outside of Medical benefits will also fall away as a result of the same sex marriage law.

That is fair. Now that every couple can access the benefits via marriage, its entirely fair for the extra benefits to be limited in that way.

That being said, its ridiculous that health care cover in the US is run through employers.

Except it's not... It's run through the market and employers use insurance as an incentive to get and retain employees.

Apparently paying an employee 70K per year is a liberal badge of honor but giving them good health care is shameful..

I think there is a conversation that could be had to design additional tax-free compensation in lieu of being on an employers health plan. Something along the lines of at 401k, put the cash right into a Health Savings Account for use to buy insurance, pay co-pays, or just bank it for medical needs.

If insuring an individual costs $7,000 to the company, give the employee $7,000 to purchase their own health insurance.

(In my specific case at my specific company in my specific family insurance situation, this would be highly preferable.)

(Yes, there are many, many things to iron out in the above. What I wrote is toosimplistic.)

(10-27-2015 01:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:08 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  http://ushealthnews.mercer.com/article/4...i-sOH6rTcs

Have already heard many large companies during this annual enrollment period now will only offer the former domestic partner benefits to legally married couples including same sex marriage couples.
I wonder if many saw this coming .
It makes perfect sense if opposite sex partners living together wouldn't receive those same benefits. I'm sure other changes outside of Medical benefits will also fall away as a result of the same sex marriage law.

That is fair. Now that every couple can access the benefits via marriage, its entirely fair for the extra benefits to be limited in that way.

That being said, its ridiculous that health care cover in the US is run through employers.

Except it's not... It's run through the market and employers use insurance as an incentive to get and retain employees.

Apparently paying an employee 70K per year is a liberal badge of honor but giving them good health care is shameful..

No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that health care should be completely decoupled from employment. Still require it to be offered. Still require people to pay for it. But don't make it any business of the employer.

Phase out employer provided plans by moving everyone currently on a plan to a stipend.

Bonus points on this one...Hobby Lobby will have to find another excuse to oppose health care.

(10-27-2015 01:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 01:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:08 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  http://ushealthnews.mercer.com/article/4...i-sOH6rTcs

Have already heard many large companies during this annual enrollment period now will only offer the former domestic partner benefits to legally married couples including same sex marriage couples.
I wonder if many saw this coming .
It makes perfect sense if opposite sex partners living together wouldn't receive those same benefits. I'm sure other changes outside of Medical benefits will also fall away as a result of the same sex marriage law.

That is fair. Now that every couple can access the benefits via marriage, its entirely fair for the extra benefits to be limited in that way.

That being said, its ridiculous that health care cover in the US is run through employers.

Except it's not... It's run through the market and employers use insurance as an incentive to get and retain employees.

Apparently paying an employee 70K per year is a liberal badge of honor but giving them good health care is shameful..

No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that health care should be completely decoupled from employment.

And what stops you from (1) not taking your employers offering and (2) buying your own. I know a lot of guys who live on 6 month contracts that cover their own insurance.

There is a difference between "have to" and "happens"

(10-27-2015 01:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 01:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that health care should be completely decoupled from employment.

And what stops you from (1) not taking your employers offering and (2) buying your own. I know a lot of guys who live on 6 month contracts that cover their own insurance.

There is a difference between "have to" and "happens"

I agree with Tom, but for greatly different reasons.

If I don't take my employer's offering, I'm not offered cash compensation in the same amount.

Also, if I buy an individual policy, it isn't treated the same, tax wise, as an offering from my employer.

(10-27-2015 01:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 01:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 01:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:08 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  http://ushealthnews.mercer.com/article/4...i-sOH6rTcs

Have already heard many large companies during this annual enrollment period now will only offer the former domestic partner benefits to legally married couples including same sex marriage couples.
I wonder if many saw this coming .
It makes perfect sense if opposite sex partners living together wouldn't receive those same benefits. I'm sure other changes outside of Medical benefits will also fall away as a result of the same sex marriage law.

That is fair. Now that every couple can access the benefits via marriage, its entirely fair for the extra benefits to be limited in that way.

That being said, its ridiculous that health care cover in the US is run through employers.

Except it's not... It's run through the market and employers use insurance as an incentive to get and retain employees.

Apparently paying an employee 70K per year is a liberal badge of honor but giving them good health care is shameful..

No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that health care should be completely decoupled from employment.

And what stops you from (1) not taking your employers offering and (2) buying your own. I know a lot of guys who live on 6 month contracts that cover their own insurance.

There is a difference between "have to" and "happens"

Cant get insurance in Texas if it isn't through an employer. We already went through that before.

(10-27-2015 02:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Cant get insurance in Texas if it isn't through an employer. We already went through that before.

Wait what? There is no Affordable Care Act in Texas? You can't buy health insurance through a brokerage? Minimum wage employees at McDonalds can buy health insurance through their employer?

I am way out of the know, apparently.

huh... my company always offered the same benefits to all partners/spouses/etc.

(10-27-2015 02:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 01:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 01:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 01:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  That is fair. Now that every couple can access the benefits via marriage, its entirely fair for the extra benefits to be limited in that way.

That being said, its ridiculous that health care cover in the US is run through employers.

Except it's not... It's run through the market and employers use insurance as an incentive to get and retain employees.

Apparently paying an employee 70K per year is a liberal badge of honor but giving them good health care is shameful..

No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that health care should be completely decoupled from employment.

And what stops you from (1) not taking your employers offering and (2) buying your own. I know a lot of guys who live on 6 month contracts that cover their own insurance.

There is a difference between "have to" and "happens"

Cant get insurance in Texas if it isn't through an employer. We already went through that before.

You like to just make up lies.

A number of people do it. That doesn't mean its particularly affordable.

(10-27-2015 06:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 02:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 01:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 01:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 01:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Except it's not... It's run through the market and employers use insurance as an incentive to get and retain employees.

Apparently paying an employee 70K per year is a liberal badge of honor but giving them good health care is shameful..

No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that health care should be completely decoupled from employment.

And what stops you from (1) not taking your employers offering and (2) buying your own. I know a lot of guys who live on 6 month contracts that cover their own insurance.

There is a difference between "have to" and "happens"

Cant get insurance in Texas if it isn't through an employer. We already went through that before.

You like to just make up lies.

A number of people do it. That doesn't mean its particularly affordable.

I can't buy coverage that covers treatment at my local public cancer hospital at any price. No company provides it to people who aren't in an employer group plan. BCBS TX offers plans to big companies that cover that hospital. But not to small business owners or independent contractors.

I can buy coverage that covers that hospital if I go through the same BCBS group in a Democratic state.

Its not about affordable. Texas doesn't offer affordable or even unaffordable. Democratic states offer affordable and comprehensive.

(10-27-2015 10:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its not about affordable. Texas doesn't offer affordable or even unaffordable. Democratic states offer affordable and comprehensive.

So the solution to your problem would be interstate purchases of health insurance.

(10-27-2015 10:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 06:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 02:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 01:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 01:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that health care should be completely decoupled from employment.

And what stops you from (1) not taking your employers offering and (2) buying your own. I know a lot of guys who live on 6 month contracts that cover their own insurance.

There is a difference between "have to" and "happens"

Cant get insurance in Texas if it isn't through an employer. We already went through that before.

You like to just make up lies.

A number of people do it. That doesn't mean its particularly affordable.

I can't buy coverage that covers treatment at my local public cancer hospital at any price.

And so it begins..



"I can't get coverage" move to I can't get coverage at this on particular hospital.

(10-27-2015 02:55 PM)Hitch Wrote:  huh... my company always offered the same benefits to all partners/spouses/etc.

Mine too...most big companies were WAY ahead of the US on benefits for gay couples

(10-28-2015 06:38 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 02:55 PM)Hitch Wrote:  huh... my company always offered the same benefits to all partners/spouses/etc.

Mine too...most big companies were WAY ahead of the US on benefits for gay couples

So did Mine, but in Jan 2016 it will only be for "Married Couples" both Same and Opposite Sex, and Children up to 26. I'm employed with a Fortune 50 Company.

I haven't seen the actual wording yet but that is the buzz going around from others that have enrolled for '16. I'm doing My enrollment this weekend.

(10-27-2015 10:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 06:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 02:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 01:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 01:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that health care should be completely decoupled from employment.

And what stops you from (1) not taking your employers offering and (2) buying your own. I know a lot of guys who live on 6 month contracts that cover their own insurance.

There is a difference between "have to" and "happens"

Cant get insurance in Texas if it isn't through an employer. We already went through that before.

You like to just make up lies.

A number of people do it. That doesn't mean its particularly affordable.

I can't buy coverage that covers treatment at my local public cancer hospital at any price. No company provides it to people who aren't in an employer group plan. BCBS TX offers plans to big companies that cover that hospital. But not to small business owners or independent contractors.

I can buy coverage that covers that hospital if I go through the same BCBS group in a Democratic state.

Its not about affordable. Texas doesn't offer affordable or even unaffordable. Democratic states offer affordable and comprehensive.

So you are saying you can't get individual insurance that covers MD Anderson (or some other hospital). All business insurance now has favored hospitals and some policies limit you to certain hospitals. That doesn't mean you don't have insurance. You just don't have full choice.

Obamacare has limited options as well.