Marriage Inequality: From A Social To A Personal Issue
As a resident of Rhode Island, I have been in a “domestic partnership” for ten years. To achieve this status, we successfully completed the state’s affidavit process, which included providing a number of legal documents. Once our partnership became official, according to the General Laws of the state (Section 36-12-1[3]), each of us became considered a dependent under the other’s health insurance plan, depending on who was working full-time.
Approaching the age of 65, I filed for Medicare Part A, a hospitalization benefit. I chose to decline Medicare Part B or doctor visits, at a cost of $99 a month, as I am already fully covered under my partner’s health insurance plan. My partner plans to work another seven years.
However, I have a problem and that is the Social Security Administration (SSA) will penalize me for my delayed enrollment. Unless I enroll in Medicare Part B within the next few months, future enrollment would mean paying an additional $10 a month for each month of delay, or about $120 a year. Thus, if I wait until my partner retires in seven years, I will pay an additional $70 each month or $840 a year.
The other penalty is that I will not be able to enroll during the “special enrollment” period, but only in the “general enrollment” period of January through March of any given year.
The decision is obvious: I am not going to purchase something I do not need. However, the fact that the federal government does not recognize domestic partnership in the state of Rhode Island, inclusive of health insurance, is troubling. I realize that the federal laws regarding domestic partnership are under review, but I will be appealing to the Woonsocket Office of SSA in protest of this inequitable treatment regarding my Social Security benefits.
Katie
12:33 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Life is too short to stomp on other people's happiness.
Karen Paley
1:03 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
I agree but I am not sure how your comment relates to my concerns. Could you clarify?
Katie
1:15 am on Thursday, September 6, 2012
You should just be able to marry your partner like I can marry mine. I don't know why other people feel they need to stop you.
David
2:07 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
The penalty is one percent a month which is about $1.You have credible coverage now so there should be no penalty as long as that coverage remains in force. How much is your partner or her employer paying for your coverage? More than 99.90 a month!
Karen Paley
3:02 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Naturally there is no penalty now but the penalty the longer I delay buying something I don't need now is cumulative. The numbers are from a social security representative in Utah.
David
2:20 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Slight correction. The penalty is 10 percent a year, 1 percent a month is for not having a prescription plan. That's 83 cents a month.
Bill Pett
5:19 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
I don't know the numbers, but whatever the amount, it's patently unfair. Because my wife and I are married, I won't have any penalty for not signing up until she gives up her coverage. The same should apply to all couples.
Peter A. Filippi III
7:25 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
I don’t believe in any of this Domestic Partner nonsense. Whatever the law is for individuals should be all you should be entitled to. For years I supported Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and many other pro family groups so I know what the statistics are and there nothing to be proud of. Do the world a favor and keep what you do in the bedroom to yourselves and don’t impose on people of faith? I know we are all sexual and none of us are perfect but human nature being what it is; have a little respect…
Karen Paley
7:32 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
But your comment is based on an unstated assumption about bedroom activity, something most of us have no way of knowing.
Ray Andrews
8:09 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Just out of curiosity, how do two married gays or lesbians having sex impose any more on people of faith than two unmarried gays or lesbians having sex. In the end it's two gays or lesbians having sex, and your issue seems to be with gays or lesbians having sex. Should heterosexual couples not then be allowed to be married if they ever intend on having oral or anal sex ?
Cynthia Lachapelle Shannon
9:38 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Your comment is completely off the mark, Peter. And what if these two women in their domestic partnership decide to lead celibate lives? And what if they don't? Either way, it's none of your or my concern what they do or don't do in the bedroom. Nor should what they do or don't do in the bedroom affect their rights as citizens. If it is my right, as a married woman, to be entitled to certain benefits, then it should be her right, as a married woman, to be entitled to the same benefits.
I don't believe in any of this bigoted, discriminatory, degrading nonsense that you spurt. I know the statistics regarding divorce rates of married couples and they're nothing to be proud of. Do the world a favor and keep your bigoted, prejudiced remarks to yourself and don't impose your intolerance on people of faith, like me. Have a little respect.
Mom of 3
10:06 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
I hate it when bigoted people hide behind "faith". True people of faith express love and tolerance, not hate and discrimination.
Ray DeForge
3:02 pm on Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Dear Peter,
............... Thank you for verbally castrating us who are not exactly like YOU !
Talk about "having a little respect"................. GET REAL !!!!!!!
Karen Paley
7:30 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Thank you for your honesty.
Katie
1:19 am on Thursday, September 6, 2012
It's better when people are just honest. And you are the far more classier one.
Ray DeForge
3:08 pm on Tuesday, September 18, 2012
No................ Thank YOU, Karen - for your courage.......... something I sorely lacked for almost half my life.
Jack Baillargeron
1:50 am on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Don't really care who is married to who as long as they are humans.
However I am confused on you say this part "Approaching the age of 65, I filed for Medicare Part A, a hospitalization benefit. I chose to decline Medicare Part B or doctor visits, at a cost of $99 a month, as I am already fully covered under my partner’s health insurance plan."
Is somehow diffrent. It is the same for all married couples or individuals on getting the medicare B, you either get it right away or yes pay the penalty for the rest of your life.
Jack Baillargeron
1:58 am on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Don't really care who is married to who as long as they are humans. Also included is civil unions.
Karen Paley
12:20 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
It is my understanding that if you notify the SSA administration before 65, if you are covered under a health insurance plan at that time, your own or your "spouse's," then you don't pay any delay penalty when you finally enroll in Medicare B. However, being covered under a plan through a relationship not recognized as legal by the federal government is what incurs the two penalties, financial and compressed enrollment period.
Jack Baillargeron
4:25 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Karen that is not true. Me and my wife just went through all of this. If you do not take the b option when offered you will be penalized, no matter what private insurance you have. Frankly my wife would be better off on my plan then any medicare plans.
If you live in locally, I live in Bristol, you can talk to my wife about it. It took us months to figure all this out and she just got it done last week so it all works now. I am in the Bristol phone book and feel free to call. She can help you I am sure and give you the same people she talked to who straightened it out.
Jack Baillargeron
4:28 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Oh we have all paperwork copies and such, it has been almost a year figuring it out, leave it to the government lol.
Bill Pett
4:34 pm on Tuesday, September 18, 2012
If you have "comparable coverage" as recognized by SSA, as through your own policy or your spouse's, you can sign up for Part B later without penalty, as long as you make the switch immediately when your coverage ends.
The marriage issue comes up because coverage through someone you're not married to, a domestic partner, is excluded by law.
Bill Pett
11:43 am on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Regarding the comment "don't impose on people of faith": many people of faith do support the rights of gays to marry. The Unitarian church (my church) generally does, many or most Congregationalists, many Methodists and Episcopalians, the list can go on. Many gay marriages are performed by clergy. So I'd say those who oppose gay marriage are the ones imposing on my faith the faith of many others. If you want freedom of religion, go ahead with whatever you want to say in your church, but leave my church alone!