[Tax-chick]

I think it's strange that all these arguments about families lately are framed in terms of corporate or state benefits. That could so easily be resolved with simple contract adjustments: for SS or other benefits, simply allow the covered person to designate a beneficiary of his/her choice, without needing to address the relationship between them.

With health insurance, policies currently are designated (usually) for "employee only," "employee and spouse," or "employee and family." Sometimes the "family" is subcategorized by the number of dependents. Simple changes: "Employee," or "Employee and adult dependent," or "Employee + other adult + # of juveniles." Changes allowed at the usual times, pricing is no different from other policies based on the number of insureds.

If we can't get the government/employers out of the benefits business entirely (my first choice) then it would at least be an increase in everyone's freedom if they could simply identify their chosen beneficiaries and pay their premiums, without third parties snooping into their relationships.

[webstersII]

"If we can't get the government/employers out of the benefits business entirely (my first choice) then it would
at least be an increase in everyone's freedom if they could simply identify their chosen beneficiaries and pay
their premiums, without third parties snooping into their relationships."

I think you missed Colson's point.

He's saying that since the family in and of itself offers myriad benefits to society then we should encourage the development and retention of families in our society. That means you offer incentives like SS benefits and tax breaks.

Designation of a beneficiary is a legally trivial thing but the effects of that are felt throughout society.