Will Marriage Inequality Affect My Health Insurance?
Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:41:48 AM PDT
Update - See below.
My girlfriend and I have been together roughly four years now. We have a 17 month old son together, have been living together in our current apartment under a co-lease agreement for a year, and lived roughly a year in our previous apartment (w/o me on the lease, but legally obliged by it {scattered references}). Before that, I lived with my brother and she lived with her sister, and before that, she with her parents.
I work at UPENN and it is currently Open Enrollment for benefits, something I desperately need to sign up for. Our intention was to sign myself, my girlfriend, and our son up under a plan. However, we're not sure how to file my girlfriend's status.
She's not a domestic partner, since we're a heterosexual couple and we don't fit the general requirements for a common-law marriage, which includes joint tax filings, among other things.
I called Penn Benefits to ask how I should summarize my relationship with my girlfriend and the woman I spoke with mentioned a few points before suggesting that I contact HR directly.
- Filing jointly helps identify a common-law marriage. The problem with this, however, is that without some form of pre-existing formal certification of common-law marriage, I don't see how we even could file our taxes jointly as is, so this one's out.
- A joint bank account. We do not have one currently, nor have we had one ever. We could certainly create one but something is telling me that a joint bank account as a pre-requisite is going to require a longer standing history than one I could create today.
- "Proof" of our relationship going back as far as September xx, 2003.
Here are my problems with this setup. First off, when we first met almost four years ago, we had no idea that almost 4 years later, we'd still be together, sharing an apartment, and raising a child. Nobody can predict the future and so I think as a pre-requisite for extending my benefits to my girlfriend, it's a pretty shabby and weak point to have to fulfill.
Marriage, especially in today's age, is not something that everyone does anymore, and oftentimes, for good reason. Now, we've discussed getting married but it's been more from a financial point of view as in terms of getting a larger tax break for married couples but overall, marriage as an institution is not something we're particularly concerned with. We're committed to each other, we know this, and we have a son that we're jointly responsible for, both financially as well as parentally.
What complicates this matter, and which I find highly unfair, is the status of domestic couples, which UPENN has set aside a specific set of justifications and clarifications for in order to allow same-sex couples to extend and share benefits.
Here's the thing. As it currently looks to be, I cannot easily extend benefits to my girlfriend because she is just my girlfriend. However, if we were a same-sex couple, I would be able to extend those benefits to my girlfriend, especially because we have a child together.
What I find unfair is that it appears that generally speaking, unless we can narrowly fit some sort of criteria for a common-law marriage, we would otherwise have to get married in order for me to be able to extend my benefits to my long-standing girlfriend and mother of my child, both which I live with in our shared apartment.
If one of the "notions" of why I cannot extend benefits to my girlfriend is that being we're a heterosexual couple, full state sanctioned marriage is an open option to us, and yet the availability of benefits is extended to homosexual couples in light of the fact that full state sanctioned marriage is not extended to those couples, then one of two things, in my opinion, needs to occur.
Provisions need to either be adjusted to recognize long-term committed relationships, especially where children are involved and both parents have jointly opted out of marriage for whatever reason...
or...
...full state sanctioned marriage rights need to be offered to homosexual couples.
Honestly, if the latter occurred, I'd be more happy as there's obviously marriage inequality in this country that ought not to be and speaking soley for myself, one of these reasons I'm not jumping on the marriage bandwagon is specifically because of this. However, the overall point that benefits might be denied to my girlfriend on the possible grounds that we are not married while concurrently, benefits for homosexual couples aren't denied outside of marriage is completely absurd and in the end, just creates yet another example of inequality where one should not exist.
All the above said, I've yet to speak to my HR department so perhaps things will become clearer and make more sense. Yet if my basic understanding laid out above is correct overall, then this is seriously messed up and I blame insurance companies as well as those who fight tooth and nail against extending full marriage recognition to homosexual couples for making what should be an easy process difficult and often, unavailable.
I'm going to try to get into our HR department to get some clarification and hopefully, an update will come later today but I'm certainly interested in anyone's thoughts and/or experiences regarding this type of situation and how you dealt with it, got around it, or what.
Thanks.
Update FWIW
I just got back from my HR department (as I said I would check in with further) and ultimately, yes, unless I can prove our relationship was in effect as far back as Sept/03, filed taxes jointly, or had a joint bank account or home-ownership, we have to become married (civil, at least) in order to add my girlfriend to my benefits plan.
In the meantime, we will add my son to my benefits and discuss the marriage option further as I have to ultimately get our son insured anyways since, it's open enrollment for only a limited time, but in the event we get married, I can always add my wife at any time.
While there, we discussed what I've presented above and they related a point many here have made in that without some type of contractual document indicating a committed relationship, companies will not insure because - who knows - I could have one girlfriend one day and another the next.
And I understand the reason. Jokingly, I asked the person I was speaking with if they take into account the current divorce rate in this country and how people get married and get divorced all the time and whether they weighed that in any manner into these types of insurance decisions.
She said it didn't matter.
Permalink | 64 comments