Governor Tim Kaine has proposed to extend the Virginia health care plan to include domestic partners and other qualified adults of state employees. One major reason for extending the health care plan is to attract highly qualified individuals to the Virginia job market, especially at the college/university level.

The highly qualified adults could include grown children, a domestic partner, parents-in-law, to name a few relationships. One qualifier would be that the person must live with the state employee. The cost would be picked up by the employee, not the state.

Opponents are already offering up a hue and cry over Gov. Kaine throwing a bone to the gays. Additionally the opponents have said it will cost the tax payer money. The employee would bear the cost. Still others feel that only married couples and their children should have the privilege of health care.

Many major companies coming in to the Old Dominion have offered similar type benefits to their employees. State officials feel that extending state benefits puts the state, as an employer, on a level playing field with other companies and agencies.

Would state employees be exempt from having to pay income tax on these benefits? Good for Virginia for seeing the need to incorporate as many into a health care program as possible. This is a positive step that costs the state nothing.

21 Thoughts to “Other Qualified Adults”

  1. Second-Alamo

    It seems to me that the tax payers should be allowed to define policy as to who they will subsidize the cost of insurance. Today there are houses with several generations of individuals living together. Does that mean that I would have to partially pay for someone else’s 6 cousins and 3 uncles who may already be getting other support from the state? Look out Virginia, here comes the ………..well, you get the picture!

  2. While there is no doubt in my mind that domestic partners an other dependents should be covered, I would hope there would be limits. For example, covering a domestic partner and/or children is not the same thing as covering dozens of extended family members. Covering an elderly parent isn’t the same thing as covering Uncle Joe’s third cousin who has a bank account the size of Tyson’s.

  3. You aren’t paying for anyone as a taxpayer. The employee pays.

    Taxpayers never get line item vetoes. Think how many people would opt out of anything war.

    I believe that there are lists of who would be covered. It isn’t just a distant relative or a renter. Regardless, the employee would be paying.

  4. @Moon-howler If the employee is paying, then I guess I really don’t care how many people are being covered, unless someone found some loophole to rip off the system, in which case that person would be fired and it would take care of itself.

  5. Exactly. Many large companies already do allow for domestic partners and others.

    I confused myself. If the employee paid out of pocket for the health care, there would be no tax. Silly me. Some companies pay for domestic partners. In this case, the employee must pay taxes on the money it costs.

    That would have nothing to do with this case.

  6. @Moon-howler
    I actually think domestic partners should qualify for coverage on their partners’ policy. A dependent is a dependent, no matter what the relationship.

    Curious, but what happens if your mother-in-law who is elderly and sick resides with you as a dependent? Can she be covered? Can you claim “head of household” or something like that, and will it matter when it comes to insurance?

  7. PAP, not necessarily re dependents

    It all depends on the policy. Your mother in law question is a perfect example. In most cases she would be covered by Medicare. But what if she is a young mother in law?

  8. Do most people even care as long as they don’t have to foot the bill? I sure don’t.

    Most of us get irritated over things when we have to pay for them. I gave up on that years ago when I accepted that I had no line item veto on anything.


    I keep going back to something Rick said yesterday. I am going to be bold and just ask the question. Hats off to Rick for having the nads to speak his mind. Most of us, myself included, would have been too chicken you know what.

    When people elect to have severely handicapped children, knowing that the state will be responsible for most of the medical bills for as long as that child lives, does it ever become our business? (I await Rick’s opinion.)

  9. I guess my thing is domestic partners should be covered without having to pay out of pocket. Others should pay out of pocket.

  10. Some companies do not pay for spouses. Your spouse may be covered but the employee foots the bill. I expect the state might do that.

  11. Witness Too

    I think it would be a good gesture for our new Governor to carry forth with this plan. He has said he intends to steer away from social issues and do what is best for the Commonwealth. This is a way to stand up to the knee-jerk homophobia lobby and do just that.

  12. hello

    Posting As Pinko :I guess my thing is domestic partners should be covered without having to pay out of pocket. Others should pay out of pocket.

    huh? Just who are the ‘others’ that should pay? Am I missing something here?

  13. Black Velvet Reporter

    Black Velvets are insisting that it will cost the tax payers money. Not so but when has that ever stopped the Velvets.

    There might be just a tiny bit of homophobia in their discussion also.

  14. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Surprise, surprise!! Believe in immigration laws? You’re a racist and a xenophobe. Believe in marriage between a man and a woman? You’re a homophobe. Libs have some sort of sick addiction to name-calling. I think it’s indicative of a mental maturity level, myself. I don’t care about this issue too much. I would oppose it based purely on the fact that so many simpleton name-callers support it so much. My company offers these benefits, and as far as what taxpayers foot the bill for, there are bigger fish to fry.

  15. Slowpoke, does your company pay for other people other than dependent children or spouse or simply make those plans available?

    I think that is the big difference–who pays.

    Speaking of paying, I don’t like coverage being based on what is a hot topic with the public when you are a state or fed employee. I get real tired of this ‘not on my tax dollars’ for insurance coverage that someone might get on their job with fed, state or local. No line item veto.

  16. Slow, I believe in marriage between and man and a woman. I also don’t care if gays marry. It is no skin off my nose. Am I a homophobe?

    If you read the blogosphere, there are people objecting to this plan because of domestic partnerships and the fact that someone gay might get on the state insurance plan. There is definite gay bashing out there. So now no one is allowed to point out homophobia? That’s what some of it is unless we have a new name for it.

  17. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Well, Moon, I wasn’t saying YOU made the point about homophobia. My company (and I’m guessing most like mine), pays for the coverage same as with a wife or family. We pay some, they pay some. If I recall, doing it at the government level is a more recent phenomenon, and I get that. As I said, this issue is tough for me to get worked up over. I just couldn’t care less if a person is gay/straight/bestial/necrophile. It’s one of those “not my business” things. Just like I thought what Clinton did with Lewinski was not my business (or anyone else’s, for that matter).

  18. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    I thought of another way to say it. In the sentence “I don’t want to pay for your gay partner’s health care” the stress is on the first seven words. Practically anything could come after those seven words, like “education/translation services for illegal immigrants”, or anything else, but the stress is always on “I don’t want to pay for your …….”

  19. I always had the lion’s share of mine paid for as a benefit. I had to chunk in some of it. However, if kids and spouse were covered, I paid the entire amount. No one else other than spouse and kids were allowed. The relationship was very specific and spelled out.

    I agree with you on all of those things being none of our business. The Clinton matter was between both Clintons and no one else. I still seeth over Ken Starr. (speaking of people who need to do a self evaluation on orientation.)

    I actually get tired of hearing what people don’t want to pay for. The bottom line is, no one really gives a crap. I think you are right though about the 7 words.

  20. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Moon-howler :
    I actually get tired of hearing what people don’t want to pay for. The bottom line is, no one really gives a crap. I think you are right though about the 7 words.

    Apparently Congress is tired of hearing about it too. We’ll be explaining it to them in different ways next November. It will be more clear, and less wordy.

  21. On the other hand, Slow, you might not want to pay for one thing and I might not want to pay for something else. Its all a wash.

    Your ‘side’ can beef it up, and the other ‘side’ beefs up their 7 words and the same people end up back in Congress.

    I am doing my political shut down….I have been for several months. It is really all such horse crap when you get right down to it.

Comments are closed.