Fiscal Conservatives: Ending DOMA is a responsible step
The provision of the "Defense of Marriage Act" that prohibits federal recognition of validly-performed state marriages costs taxpayers millions each year. by Tully
(libertarian)
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Robert and Carl* are a gay couple who have been together for several years. They live in a state that permits same-sex marriage, and recently tied the knot in a Church ceremony. Like many other married couples, they have established a stable home and are active members of their community. Carl is healthy but lives with a manageable medical condition. Like approximately 1.1 million other Americans, Carl is HIV positive.
Today, HIV positive people are living long, normal, healthy lives…as long as they receive proper medical care. Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART), a combination of three medications, is now the standard treatment to battle HIV . While quite effective one of the major downsides of treatment is cost. Carl's three medications run about $2,200 per month…a figure that is quite typical. This, of course, does not include approximately six blood tests and physicians appointments per year, bringing his treatment costs to about $3,000 per month.
The US Congress recognized the steep cost of treatment when they reauthorized the Ryan White Care Act in 2009 by a vote of 408-9. This Act authorizes the expenditure of over $2 billion annually to assist with HIV outreach and treatment. It is the ‘payer of last resort,' and income guidelines are applied towards recipients, but still it is estimated that some 30% of HIV positive individuals receive some assistance through this program.
More comprehensive coverage, of course, is available through private insurance. More than 25% of Americans work for an employer that offers domestic partner benefits; 51% percent of Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner health benefits; and 37% of all Americans live in states where some legal protection of same-sex partner arrangements exist (marriage, civil unions, or domestic partner benefits.)
Back to Robert and Carl.
Robert has a full-time, secure job, and both he and his employer contribute towards Roberts' health insurance. When Robert married Carl, they looked forward to Carl's being added to Roberts policy as a spouse, thus providing not only coverage for Carl's HIV medicine, but for the entire range of normal health care for which the typical American might visit the doctor or the hospital. Robert, who had been married before, had already had his children (and formerly, an ex-wife), on his family policy.
Enter the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA").
Under DOMA, the federal government agencies are prohibited from recognizing the validity of same-sex unions of any kind, even when they are authorized under state law. This is a significant change to federal-state relationships, since Family Law issues have always been decided at the state level. As a result, in Rhode Island, Alabama, and Alaska first cousins may legally marry, while in Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania such marriages are illegal. The Federal government dos not take a stand on this issue: they accept first-cousin marriages from Alaska as legal, but would reject the validity of first-cousin marriages illegally performed in Pennsylvania. In other words, the federal government normally accepts the states' definition of marriage as authoritative in the matter of marriage.
Under DOMA, however, the federal government will not consider a same-sex marriage, validly performed under state law, as a valid marriage under federal law. And that has serious federal income tax implications.
When Robert added Carl, his lawful spouse, to his family health insurance, his HR office informed him that since Carl was not a spouse under federal law, Robert would have to pay taxes on "imputed income" to Carl. "Imputed Income is the addition of the value of cash/non-cash compensation to an employees' taxable wages," and both federal income taxes and FICA (Social Security) taxes are assessed against the value of this imputed income.
Robert was shocked when he saw his next paycheck. In order to cover the imputed value of providing health insurance to his spouse – an action that is never applied to an opposite-sex spouse – his employer had withheld an additional $450/month from his paycheck.
As a middle-class income-earner, the loss of an additional $5,400 annually was too much to absorb. Robert removed Carl from his health insurance policy, and Carl applied for – and received – HIV coverage under the Ryan White Act.
The sad reality is that without DOMA, Carl could have been added to a private insurance policy just as any other spouse could be, without the punishing effect of federal taxes associated with imputed income.
Because of DOMA, American taxpayers will now pay a minimum of $36,000 annually for Carl. And this is just a single instance of a pattern that is replicated across the nation.
There are over 1.1 million HIV positive Americans. 30% receive assistance through the Two Billion dollar plus Ryan White Care Act. Close to half might currently or eventually be eligible for private insurance coverage through spouses, civil unions, domestic partnership arrangements, or company policies.
Fiscal Conservatives, take note: one of the single most significant actions you could take to reduce spending and taxpayer burden, while improving health care provisions for hundreds of thousands of Americans, is to repeal the provision of DOMA that prohibits federal recognition of valid state marriages.
The only real question is whether you believe that punishing homosexual couples is a more important public policy goal.
*Robert and Carl are not their real names, but they are real people and the dollar figures and story are entirely accurate. --------------------------
SOURCES:
CDC 'HIV Prevalence Estimates -- United States, 2006' MMWR 57(39), 3 October 2008 http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100057404 http://aids.about.com/od/hivmedicationfactsheets/a/drugcost.htm AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) - Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Fact Sheet U.S. Census Bureau. "County Business Patterns: 2000." Human Rights Campaign, "State of the Workplace: 2006." http://www.haasjr.org/index.php http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/imputed-income/
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 11
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Tully only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Tully is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Seriously, marriages really are more of a religious thing to do. If government and insurance companies stayed out of any marriage business and strictly provide services to individuals rather than try to do any \\\"social engineering\\\"
Fags wouldn\'t have anything to complain about and I wouldn\\\'t have to defend them anymore. They are really beginning to piss me off with their idiotic claim of \"I can\'t help it\".
You know, children and pedophiles also make that claim.
Intellectually, I DISOWN them all. But hey, they are creatures/persons too. As long as they don\'t start sueing churches for not providing marriage services they shouldn\'t expect in the first place, I won\'t object to their so called \"marriages\". There will always be quotations around marriage when in reference to gay relationships. It doesn\'t matter if they make it law. They can try to change the opinion of others by taking away freedom, but they fail to realize that these are INALIENABLE RIGHTS that even bigots have.
Government isn\'t God and Fags who claim to be Libertarian should just stop turning to Government cuz it makes them look like hypocrites and idiots. They can protect their own rights just like I protect mine.
The first problem with the premise of this opinion is that there is not a single state I am aware of that has enacted the oxymoron of "gay marriage" without an arbitrary ruling from a Liberal judge making it happen. While the author carefully chooses words like "validly performed under state law" he leaves out the issue of the will of the people, which overwhelmingly opposes same sex "marriage" every time it is polled or put to a referendum.
To therefore represent that the Federal gov't should recognize the opinion of an amoral Judge in the stead of the will of the people from a state is laughable.
Next, it is likely the HIV positive character in the story, being an admitted sexual deviant, contracted his disease via immoral behavior, unlike Ryan White which the act is named for. The idea we taxpayers should help pay for his ongoing care is confiscatory at best. In reality, the act in question is not justified under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and should be repealed.
This author claims to be a libertarian but his opinion seems to suggest that the power of the state be used to not only steal one's money for non-constitutional purposes, but to override the will of the people and recognize the opinion of errant judges as the law of the land.
Wil, using words like "deviant" and "immoral" reveals that you allowed puritanical fury to rule your response rather than reason.
1) Three of the five states that have complete Marriage Equality - Connecticut, New Hapshire, and Vermont - did so through the legislative, not Judicial process.
2) My arguement is that taxpayers would NOT be spending this amount of money on illness congtracted during "immoral activity" if federal law did not restrict the use of PRIVATE INSURANCE for this purpose. I am arguing for private sector to handle these costs, as opposed to the taxpayer. Pleae read again without the vitriol blinding your sight.
3) To be consistent, since you oppose taxpayers paying for health care resulting from "immoral" activities, I hope to see you calling for U S Military medics to cease treating STDs among servicemen, which currently constitutes the most frequent non-combat medical cared needs among servicemen.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
