Private Employers In MA Using DOMA As Excuse To Not Provide Healthcare

[justin899]

Firms block gays' benefits, cite US law

By Kimberly Blanton , Globe Staff | December 18, 2004

Some of the largest employers in Massachusetts have decided not to extend health benefits to spouses of gay and lesbian employees, saying their federally regulated health plans are not bound by the Massachusetts court ruling permitting gay marriage.

These employers provide medical care through what are known as self-insured health plans, in which the employer, not an insurer, collects the premiums and pays the medical and hospital bills of its workers. These employers said they are not required to cover same-sex spouses because self-insured plans are regulated by federal law, which defines marriage as a union only between a man and a woman. Sixty-six percent of large US employers with more than 500 workers are self-insured, according to Mercer Human Resource Consulting.

When a Massachusetts worker in FedEx’s air-delivery unit notified her employer of her same-sex marriage and inquired about health benefits, she received a July memo from the Memphis headquarters saying her spouse would not qualify. ‘‘FedEx is not discriminating against you because of your sexual orientation,’’ FedEd said. ‘‘Rather, the company is following the terms and conditions of its benefit plans’’ under federal law.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/18/firms_block_gays146_benefits_cite_us_law

I can't say I didn't see this coming :mad:

[tx_dem41]

1. The link is broken. n/t

[justin899]

2. Thanks

The URL was too long to use the link code.

I fixed it.

[ET Awful]

3. Of course there are also employers in Mass who were offering benefits

to same-sex partners years ago. Hill-Holliday (an ad agency) was doing it in '95 or so.

[livinginphotographs]

4. Yet one more reason I think Clinton is overrated.

n/t

[BeeBee]

5. WTF????

Clinton is overrated?????

WTF:wtf:

I don't understand where you're coming from... What does Clinton have to do with these companies not offering benefits to same-sex partners???

[benevolent dictator]

6. clinton signed DOMA into law n/t

[Lisaben2619]

7. and don't forget "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

and NAFTA and the "ending welfare as we know it". I agree. Bill Clinton was the best President the Republicans ever had.

[Deja Q]

9. I second that.

[livinginphotographs]

8. Well, I was going to respond.

But it looks like someone beat me to it.

[Person_Of_Interest]

10. What a shame...

That's all I can say what a shame...:grr:

[TaleWgnDg]

11. Well? Think about it THIS way. Why should an employer

have to pay out benefits (it's costly) to employees when federal law says that those employers do not have to do so? Not only that . . . but when the federal law says it is illegal to do so? Hhhhmmmmm?


Why *blame* the employers?


.

[justin899]

13. Because that's NOT what Federal law says.

They're just using that as an excuse to deny coverage.

This is similar to the disparity between what some companies pay men and women.

A pay package includes not only salary but also benefits. In fact many people choose to work at specific companies because of their benefits package instead of the salary scale. I would submit that denying same-sex couples the same beneifts they offer to opposite-sex couples is even more egregious because they don't even try to hide their prejudiced policy. The person who is not allowed to add his or her spouse onto the companies health coverage because of the gender of their spouse is doing the same work but is getting paid substantially less. That is just WRONG!

"Why should an employer have to pay out benefits (it's costly) to employees when federal law says that those employers do not have to do so?"

Because two people doing the same job should receive the same pay.

Furthermore, federal law does not mandate that private companies provide spousal health benefits to opposite sex employees. The company does that of their own volition.

It would be analogous to explicitly telling a woman that they will only pay them 60% of the amount they pay men based solely on their gender.

"but when the federal law says it is illegal to do so?"

It isn't illegal under the federal law they're citing (the law they're citing pertains only to the federal government, not private employers). They're just using that as a lame excuse.

It is legal for them to do this, but just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and paying gay employees less than their heterosexual counterparts sends a message that their gay employees aren't valued as much as their heterosexual employees. And I find that disgusting and won't allow my money to go to companies that engage in such despicable practices.

[UltraDem]

14. Come to think of it.....

You're right! And while we are at it, why do married couples pay *less* taxes that single people? I mean, I understand the original rationale was to promote big families (i.e. lots of children, stay-at-home-moms) but with gay and lesbian marriages, that seems kinda of outdated, no? And with the world overpopulated as it is, shouldn't we give a tax break to people *w/o* children or, better yet, children who are more than likely not to breed?

Just a thought.

[Brian_Expat]

15. Actually, employers don't have to pay out benefits to ANYONE

So they should just cancel everyone's benefits -- and if you complain, cite the law, which is that benefits are optional.

Something tells me the same people who are willing to let gay families go without health care would scream bloody murder if the same logic was used on their own family.

Hypocrite.

[Redwraith]

12. Reminds me a bit

of the Nürnberg Racial Laws by the Nazis in Germany.
Then it was "you are not allowed to sit on the bench here, and no we are not discriminating you its the law" and now it is that ...