Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 92
Page 1 of 9

« Previous | Next »

Benefits for Domestic Partners of Federal Employees? Readers Speak Out

Extending health beneftis to domestic partners

Office Assistant
Forest Service
Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:28 AM

Post Reply

It appears that most of the respondent are assuming the domestic partners referred to are homosexual. They need to also consider heterosexual domestic partners. We also need to have self + one for the legally married couples that have no children, or for the single parent with just one child to cover. Why should these folks pay a higher amount than the equivalent of two singles?

Re: Extending health beneftis to domestic partners

Scientist
FDA
Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:53 AM
A labor and employee relations specialist with DHS in Dallas wrote: "The costs of group insurance are based on the number of claims filed corporately by the group. There need to be legitimate restrictions on who the group participants can be in order to hold down the costs of the insurance. Opening the benefit to anyone who comes along wanting to be included puts all current group participants at risk of increasing costs and forces everyone in the group to support (through insurance premiums) lifestyles that they believe to be unhealthy." (Well, we are supporting folks already in unhealthy lifestyles like smoking, obesity, alcoholism, and drug use--where is my freedon to NOT support them?)

Comments

Attorney
EPA
Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:49 AM

Post Reply

The comments you posted in your article completely belie the actual statistics from your survey. The survey shows that opinion is divided, with a slight majority (52%) against benefits. Yet, in the text of your article, you print 10 comments *against* the proposal and only 4 comments in favor of the proposal, with one undecided.

An uninformed reader skipping over the actual data would get the impression from reading your article that most survey participants were strongly opposed to this, when in fact this is obviously not the case. If you are going to print reader comments, at least make them representative of the actual data you collected. Any honest surveyor would do the same.

Re: Comments

editor
FedSmith.com
Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:54 AM
The statistics in the survey are exactly as calculated by the computer. We could have eliminated most of the comments to publish the same number for or against. The reality is that the vast majority of the comments were similar to those that we published. In other words, we could have skewed the comments to make it look exactly like the statistics of those voting but that was not the way the comments were submitted. I don't pretend to know why so many more were against the proposal but that is the reality.

Re: Comments

Researcher
Federal Agency
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:52 AM
Technically, the EPA poster is correct. The percent difference between those who support the proposal and those who are against it is only 7%. But the ratio of written comments in the article heavily favor those who are against (10 comments vs 4 for those who are in favor). I'm not quite sure what you mean by "I don't pretend to know why so many more were against the proposal but that is the reality." Again, it's only a 7% difference.

Or maybe you are trying to say that there were more written comments by those who are against the proposal. If that's the case, you should probably be more clear because the way the article is written gives the appearance of your being biased. And as a long-time Fedsmith reader, I know that is not the case.

Benefits for Domestic Partners

HR Director (Retired)
Department of the Air Force
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:02 AM

Post Reply

I am amazed by the results! Offering the full array of benefits to domestic partners is the right thing to do and should be a requirement. This is not an issue of whether or not one "approves" of somesone's life style. It is an issue of fairness and qualifications. If the participants are eligible and qualify for the benefits they should be provided to them. To say that providing domestic partners benefits will "open the system to abuse" is just foolish - no one can say, without a doubt, that abuse will or will not occur or than any instances of abuse will be larger than those currently occurring. We should not be looking for excuses to exclude fellow co workers - we should be pushing to extent all benefts to all federal workers, whether or not we like them or their lifestyle, as long as they meet the eligibility requirements. In my 35 plus year Federal career I had employees with domestic partners and at the work site they were not different than those with married partners.

Health Benefits

administrative specialist
BLM
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:07 AM

Post Reply

If they go this far with FEHB, why don't they allow us to buy coverage for our nieces, nephews, parents, etc., at least they are blood relatives. This is the worst issue I have heard of - why not try to lower the cost of health insurance so everyone can participate.

Re: Health Benefits

Program Support Assistant
VA
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:45 AM
I agree with allowing coverage for a dependant parent that has no pension, only a "sliver" of social security benefits.

That, in my opinion, is the ONLY non-married person that should be allowed to be covered.

More Anti Family Legislation

Analyst
FSA
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:08 AM

Post Reply

The term "domestic partner" is an insult to our cultural institutions of family and marraige. You don't have to subscribe to either of these long standing cultural institutions. That is your choice. However, as with all your individual choices, you accpet the consequences. You want to shack up, fine. Your partner wants benefits, go see a justice of the peace or minister. As for the homosexuals, you want to live that way, so be it. But again, don't ask us to subsidize you.

Re: More Anti Family Legislation

IT Spec
DOE
Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:41 AM
Analyst at the FSA,

I am a gay person who has been in a relationship with my partner for 20 years. I am tired of subsidizing your benefits without being able to have the same benefits in return.

Re: More Anti Family Legislation

Analyst
DOD
Tue Jan 1, 2008 5:55 PM
Wow, if you put as much effort in finding peacefull ways to exist on this planet as you do in hating (which is not a Christian thing!), life would be better. You seem to identify yourself by what you don't like as opposed to what you do...

We actually don't have limited resources, we have all that we need if we can just be creative. Domestic partner benefits do not limit yours nor do they tear apart Your family. That you can do all by yourself

Re: More Anti Family Legislation

Paralegal Specialist
ODAR
Wed Jan 2, 2008 7:27 AM
Oh please...I love your phrase "don't ask 'us' to subsidize you." You mean like when "we" have to subsidize everything else under the sun like schools, even though "we" don't have children? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to complain too much about that because helping kids is the right thing to do and it's for the greater good of "all." I'm just so sick and tired of people standing on their so-called moral soap box and preaching how bad "we" are. My partner and I have been in a committed relationship for almost 18 years yet we have no benefits to speak of. We both have good jobs, work hard, and are active in our own communities. I love my married neighbors to death, but they smoke and drink (things "we" are accused of doing in our "unhealthy lifestyle" and have had 7 marriages between them. The institute of marriage is a fine slogan to throw around, but be careful of throwing the stones too hard.

Re: More Anti Family Legislation

Safety & Health Manager
US Dept of Labor - OSHA
Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:21 AM
"Cultural institutions of family and marriage????" What about "all men are created equal?" My being gay is not a "choice". My partner and I live in a commited and loving relationship. We are hurting NO ONE. Also, homosexuality is not a "choice." The Federal Gov't needs to quit cowering to those on the religious right like yourself and move into the 21st century like most of the Fortune 500 companies. They have enacted domestic partner benefits, and we don't see them crumbling or becoming less profitable. Furthermore, if you really knew your Bible as well as you think you do, and if you understood it in its historical context, you would realize that the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality. Your beliefs are cosmically absurd and archaic. Grow up.

Re: More Anti Family Legislation

Specialist
DOD
Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:54 AM
It's time to realize the freaks at the gay pride parades in California do not represent the vast majority of gay people. My gay friends are in commited, loving relationships that most of my straight friends envy, and I am on my third marriage. All thay want is to be able to live as a couple with the same rights my wife and I have. Not only should they have the benefits but there needs to be at least a recognized, legally binding commitment ceremony, won't call it marriage to appease the zealots out there.

Re: More Anti Family Legislation

Engineer
Interior
Wed Jan 2, 2008 5:25 PM
The analyst at FSA is correct. Everyone knows the deal and when some choose a lifestyle that is different, only then do they carp about long standing rules and norms. You want to cohabitate and not marry, or have a gay partner, go ahead. But a family you are NOT. Its an outrage.

As to those that complain about providing family benefits if we don't to domestic partners.... I say get real. What's next? Benefits for our pets?

Re: More Anti Family Legislation

Engineer
DoD
Thu Jan 3, 2008 7:11 AM
Obviously the engineer at the Interior is just looking to stir up hate and descension. Do you really know what makes up a family? Yea, you could look at all the definitions in Webster's Dictionary, but a true family does not consist of those bound by blood (if it did, then you and your wife would not be a family). It consists of individuals committed through love and devotion. If you consider homosexuality to be a lifestyle, then what do you consider heterosexuality to be? Did you choose to be heterosexual? I did not choose to be homosexual, but that is who I am. I love myself and you have to love who you are before you can love others. Do you love who you are?

I pay for entitlements the same as you, why shouldn't my family be entitled to the same things as yours? Should I continue to support only your family and disregard mine?

The big picture

Housing Technician
USDA
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:12 AM

Post Reply

The problem with implementing something like this is it only covers part of the problem. Without the state recognizing these partnerships the couple is still technically contestable. If the couple splits is the partner still entitled to recieve those benifits and how do you determine that? The benifits system would basically have to be on the honor system. As comment in the last article a gentlemen mentioned insuring is 40 year old son. Would this also cover currently ineligible children like those above the dependent age and the children on the person's partner?

Domsetic partners of federal employees

Account Tech
DHS
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:17 AM

Post Reply

One of the benefits of the marriage commitment I made to my wife 20 yrs ago should not be watered down because others choose not to make the same commitment. Most of the private companies that caved into the pressure did so not because they agree with that lifestyle, they did it because of the influence of a small group of people- gay and lesbians. People living outside of wed-lock should not be given this benefit, they have nothing holding them there and it'll raise the cost exponentially for the rest of us. This idea creates a snare that this country will pay dearly for in the log run!

Re: Domsetic partners of federal employees

Analyst
DOD
Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:45 PM
Do you think some people don't choose to get married? Yes, some do. Others, don't even get to make the choice because it's made for them.

Re: Domsetic partners of federal employees

IT Speclst
NPS
Tue Jan 1, 2008 7:28 PM
watered down?! your marriage is to your wife, period. Benefits? That's personal. It always cost more to be married than single thanks to the tax codes til recently. Was that a benefit? One would hope you got married for the sake of Love. Nothing waters that down except yourself.

Re: Domsetic partners of federal employees

Scientist
EPA
Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:33 AM
"Choose not to make the same commitment?!!" Last time I checked there were discriminiatory laws on the books that tell me I am a second class citizen and have no right to marry. Give us our equal rights and we will happily get married to meet your definition of who is eligible for benefits.
Total Comments: 92
Page 1 of 9

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.