It wasn’t that long ago that companies would provide things like health coverage for their employees and it also covered their spouse and children.
That is increasingly uncommon today, in part due to being forced to provide benefits to “domestic partners” and others if you provide them for a married employee.
Now it is typical for a lot of companies to cover the employee only. If you want to cover a spouse or a child you will pay extra out of pocket to cover them.
If you appreciate things like that, find the nearest proponent of domestic-partnership and thank them.
And I’m not opposed to that BTW. In fact, I’m all for it if the choice is between doing that and providing a “freebie” for the domestic partners.
Your message (below) is absurd.
(1) First, very few companies provide benefits to "domestic partners".
(2) Second, in those companies which do provide benefits, the gay enrollee pays the same increased premium for 2-party coverage that a straight couple pays.
(3) Third, the primary reason why companies reduce health care benefits has nothing whatsoever to do with "domestic partners" -- Instead, it simply a mathematical computation, i.e. people are living longer, they use ever-more-expensive drugs and treatments, and the cost of health care is simply rising so fast that it is not affordable, especially to a smaller company.
"It wasn’t that long ago that companies would provide things like health coverage for their employees and it also covered their spouse and children. That is increasingly uncommon today, in part due to being forced to provide benefits to “domestic partners” and others if you provide them for a married employee. Now it is typical for a lot of companies to cover the employee only. If you want to cover a spouse or a child you will pay extra out of pocket to cover them."
If you appreciate things like that, find the nearest proponent of domestic-partnership and thank them.
That's not at all how it works. Lots of companies--in fact, most--choose to cover married couples but not domestic partners. Domestic partner benefits are a recent innovation and on the east coast anyway they're usually limited to people of the same sex. If a company refused to cover spouses, they'd set themselves up at a competitive disadvantage, but if they did make that choice, it seems extremely convoluted to blame it on a previous expansion that would only cover a small minority of employees.
My company has tons of married individuals but very few people who I think might be claiming same-sex domestic partner benefits.
Also, it makes me uncomfortable to see this discussion resolve to "who can we lock out of the health care system."