WTF: Federal law permits adding a pet to one’s health plan, but not a same-sex partner

[Hepburn]

Federal employees can use their insurance plans to buy coverage for a cat or dog -- but not a same-sex partner.

Igor Volsky of Think Progress on Wednesday night picked up on an email from Aetna to federal employees covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program, which illuminates how brazenly the law shortchanges same-sex couples.

“In these challenging economic times," reads the email, "it’s good to know you can get some financial protection for unexpected illness and injury to your pets." It then lists the various benefits.

Volsky notes: "The insurance is a handsome perk for those who can afford it, but what’s illuminating about the ad is that while federal employees can buy pet insurance 'in these challenging economic times,' LGBT workers are still prohibited from purchasing policies for their partners or spouses by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — a federal law which denies federal benefits to legally married same sex couples."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/federal-law-grants-health-benefits-pets-samesex-partners/

Denial of benefits to LEGALLY married couples...but you can add your pet to your benefits. The government has gone fucking insane.

[Crazy Dave]

1. Both sides must agree on this or it wouldn't be n/t

[Hepburn]

2. My pet cannot agree to have certain insurance...

...if I become employeed by the govt...what should I do??? :evilgrin:

[Crazy Dave]

9. No insurance that covers spaying and neutering?

:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. So you mean to tell me I should ask tricare?

They are parrots, never mind.

And yes this is Fucked Up!

[Hepburn]

5. Totally fucked up...

...your dog can get cancer surgery covered at the vet of your choice...but your spouse of the same sex is out in the cold.

The world has gone mad....

[Ezlivin]

4. But what about gay pets?

Do they get benefits?

Hmmmm.

[Hepburn]

7. DADT...n/t

[Ignis]

21. !

:spray: :rofl: :thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

6. I think FEHB does cover same sex partners

That's one of the things Obama changed early in 2009. I don't know if all agencies have made the change, or how it's being implemented exactly, but it has been changed.

I think I'll keep my opinions about pet coverage to myself.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. That's my impression too - it was one of the advances they kept touting

as part of the 'just wait, it'll get better' approach. Only applies to federal employees, of course.

[Unvanguard]

20. I don't think that's right. I think it was one of the things DOMA blocked.

I don't know if this is up-to-date, but this http://www.opm.gov/insure/archive/health/qa/qa.asp?family#6">FAQ from the OPM agrees with me.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Imagine, comparing people to animals, or actually less than animals.

What year is this again?

[NNN0LHI]

10. UAW first negotiated domestic partner benefits in 1981

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0903/is_n10_v8/ai_8972122/

[Lucky 13]

11. Oh I see. I'm less than a dog. Thanks for clarifying.

fuckers.

Sometimes I think another Stonewall Riots is exactly what this country needs...

[hack89]

13. This has nothing to do with health insurance

it is a marketing scheme by Aetna to sell pet insurance. The government has nothing to do with it.

[hack89]

12. Misleading headline

You cannot add pets to your health insurance. You can purchase separate health insurance for your pets at a slight discount. It is not subsidized by the federal government. This is marketing - it has nothing to do with what federal law allows.

[readmoreoften]

14. Would the federal govt allow an "Aetna scheme" to insure my partner, though?

Nah, they'd probably send out a survey seeing if it offended anyone first.

[hack89]

15. Nothing stops you from purchasing insurance for your partner

Nothing.

Now you deserve the same right as everyone else to get insurance through your employer for your love ones regardless of sex - but that is not what this pet insurance flap is about. It is manufactured outrage that misrepresents the facts.

[MiniMe]

17. Pet Insurance is relatively cheap. And what they are offering is not

subsidized. This is comparing apples and oranges.

[Unvanguard]

18. DOMA is such a ridiculously stupid and bigoted law.

It is astonishing.

This latest absurdity is merely one of many, ranging from the cruelly discriminatory (like denying same-sex spouses health care coverage, spousal Social Security benefits, and inheritance tax exemptions) to the simply dumb (like the fact that it actually costs the government more money than it saves, and that it blinds federal conflict-of-interest standards to same-sex relationships.)

The more I think about DOMA, the more I'm inclined to think that it is so transparently arbitrary discrimination that even this conservative Supreme Court will not be able to uphold it.

[hack89]

19. This has nothing to do with DOMA

the pet insurance is not linked in any way to the health insurance. It is simply marketing to sell pet insurance.