Here's another knock on healthcare

[AZhitman]

As most of you know, I work for state government... today we received the “open enrollment” booklet for our insurance coverage – Check THIS crap out.

Last year, the state expanded their insurance coverage to include “qualified domestic partners.” Qualification was based on the amount of financial interdependence between the partners and longevity of the relationship. Gender was not taken into consideration.

Since then a new state law was passed, which took away the coverage for domestic partners.

Here is where it gets weird. . .

Due to a combination of the change in law and a subsequent injunction filed (by parties not identified in the booklet I received), benefits for domestic partners are now offered only to same-sex partners.

So, a heterosexual male cannot offer any insurance to their female domestic partner. HOWEVER, if he was gay, he could provide insurance for his male partner.

[C-Kwik]

Not sure when such laws that affect this aspect might have kicked in, assuming that was the reasoning behind the change in your policy, but as of 9/20/2010 my school's health insurance policy allows for domestic partner coverage so long as they are registered as such.

Ultimately, that sucks, but lets not jump the gun on pointing fingers until we know why the changes were made. Unless you are just trying to fuel a fire with uncertainty...I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here despite the thread title...

[telcoman]

Probabily the wacky governor is responsible?

Telcoman

[dusred]

Probabily the wacky governor is responsible?

Telcoman

It's Bush, you noob.

[IBCoupe]

That sucks, and I see exactly how it happened. It was a failure on the part of the parties seeking the injunction and/or the judge issuing it. Alternatively, it was a d!ck move on the part of the State legislature that led to those failures.

Knowing that gays can't get married in AZ, and that DoMA prevents AZ from being forced to recognize gay marriages from other States, the State legislature sought to remove health insurance benefits for gays, by way of removing it for all domestic partnerships.* When that happened, gay rights groups in (and probably outside of) Arizona organized on behalf of the discriminated party, and filed suit seeking an injunction against the law - probably asking the Court to rule that this kind of discriminatory action is incompatible with either the State or Federal Constitutions.

Here's where the failure was: if the failure was on the part of gay rights group, it was where they failed to move for an injunction against the whole law - but maybe they did actually move for such a thing. If the failure was on the part of the Court, it was where they failed to grant an injunction against the whole law. It's also possible that this will be coming to you in steps, Greg, and whoever gave you the pamphlet might have some reason for you to be upset with it.


*A less insidious motive on the part of the State Legislature is that they were trying to keep health care costs down for those poor little insurance companies.

[telcoman]

Thank you for the update.

So short story long it was the party of no that is responsible.

It figures!

Telecoman

[IBCoupe]

Not much of an update; just the obvious story behind the facts already presented. It's possible that something different happened, but this seems most probable.

Here's an actual update:
In looking at what little news there was about HB2013, it seems like the entire law did suffer an injunction (reasoning through Equal Protection) back in July. I don't know why your insurance company would tell you that heterosexual domestic partnerships would not be covered, unless they wanted you to oppose the injunction without looking at it carefully. I'm going to keep looking.

[IBCoupe]

WARNING, THOROUGH ANALYSIS AHEAD.
(Scroll to last paragraph if you don't want to read it all)

So I'm looking at the Court's actual opinion, found here. I'm going to be writing this as I read it, so what's at the beginning of this post may not be entirely consistent with what's at the end, so please bear with me.

The arguments the plaintiffs put forward is that this discriminates against homosexuals, because heterosexual partners have a way to resolve the issue and get coverage for their chosen partner: get married. In Arizona, homosexual partners are prevented from using that route. The Court agrees with this reasoning. This may be how we get to a disparate situation that Greg was informed of. Writes the Court:

While Section O is not discriminatory on its face, as applied Section O "unquestionably imposes different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation," and makes benefits available on terms that are a legal impossibility for gay and lesbian couples.

The State argued that they were aiming for cost savings, but the plaintiffs argue that you can't violate the Equal Protection Clause to do it (which, the Court explains, says that, while you can treat different classes of citizens differently, you can't do it for reasons entirely unrelated to the law itself - sexual orientation is not pertinent to employment benefits). The Court agrees with the plaintiffs here, too. The Judge wrote:

The court must agree, for the Supreme Court has held that, although "a State has a valid interest in preserving the fiscal integrity of its programs," the State may not attempt to "limit its expenditures . . . by invidious distinctions between classes of its citizens." That proposition applies here because the spousal limitation in Section O rests on an invidious distinction between heterosexual and homosexual State employees who are similarly situated.

The Court mentions that 800 employees get benefits for their domestic partners, and a "small fraction" of them get benefits for their same-sex domestic partners. The plaintiffs argue that the cost savings for that fraction is "far less" than 0.5% of the costs of the 800. The rest of it could foreseeably be shifted through marriage, for literally no cost savings. On the other hand, it causes increased costs because of reduced paying in. Writes the Court:

Moreover, if the State's interest were "simply saving money, the companion goal of promoting marriage would seem to do the opposite." If Section O succeeds in promoting marriage, the State will have to provide health benefits to more people, thus increasing the State's expenditures.

The State argued that the law should stand on the basis of administrative efficiency; that limiting "dependant" to mean "spouse" means that it's a less complicated thing to administer. The plaintiffs again argued that this doesn't justify an illegal discrimination, either. Citing the Supreme Court's past reasoning, the Court here agreed. Writes the Court:

The Supreme Court noted in Frontiero v. Richardson that "although efficacious administration of governmental programs is not without some importance, 'the Constitution recognizes higher values than speed and efficiency.'"

The State then had the gall to blatantly argue that heterosexual employees were worth more than homosexual employees. Again, the Court, emphasis mine:

Plaintiffs argue that the State’s rationale is discriminatory on its face, and not a rational state interest. The court concurs. The State’s justification raises "the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected," namely toward same-sex domestic partners who by law cannot become spouses. "If the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

Lest we think that the State was actually trying to say that married couples with children are better for the State, the Court recognizes that the state made that claim separately (that promoting marriage was in the State's interest), and addresses it next. The Court says that, while the interest of promoting marriage is served by limiting benefits from heterosexual domestic partners, it is not served by limiting benefits from homosexual domestic partners:

The Supreme Court has characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," but construing the facts of the complaint as true it cannot be said that Section O’s distinction between heterosexual and homosexual employees is legitimately, rationally, and substantially related to promoting that interest. Certainly, that aspect of Section O which is challenged, the denial of benefits to State employee's same-sex domestic partners, cannot promote marriage because gays and lesbians are ineligible to marry.

And that's why the Judge passed the injunction that he did:

Defendants are enjoined from enforcing A.R.S. § 38-651(O) to eliminate family insurance eligibility for lesbian and gay State employees, and their domestic partners and domestic partners' children who satisfy the criteria set forth in Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-5-101.

The Court apparently agreed with the State of Arizona that Arizona's interests were furthered by limiting benefits from heterosexual domestic partnerships (in that promoting marriage is in their interests), but not by limiting benefits from homosexual domestic partnerships (who can't marry anyways, so there's no marriage to promote). That's why you got the pamphlet you got - same-sex domestic partners can get benefits, but opposite-sex domestic partners can't, because the Court recognizes that the State of Arizona is telling them to get married if they want the benefits.

[AZhitman]

...yet after all that analysis, we still have discriminatory behavior, sanctioned by the state.

[IBCoupe]

Hey, it's your State. You should vote in a week.

In looking at the arguments put in front of him, I think the federal judge was right on the money. That said, I still think it was a d!ck move on the part of the Arizona Legislature.

[AZhitman]

Always do.

I have no use for folks who don't, and then whine.

[AppleBonker]

I have no use for folks who don't, and then whine.

What about those that don't vote, but then don't complain?

[AZhitman]

I have no use for folks who don't, and then whine.

What about those that don't vote, but then don't complain?

They're slightly less useless.

But, my opinion and a buck will get you something off the dollar menu, so...

[AppleBonker]

They're slightly less useless.

Well, at least I'm not completely useless then.

But I do have (what I believe at least) a legitimate reason for not voting. I actually have never voted for a politician in my life.

[IBCoupe]

You wrote that you have never voted for a politician.

Does that mean you've voted on referendums and ballot items?

[AppleBonker]

Nope, I meant I've voted with my friends on where to go for dinner...

Actually, I probably would have voted for referendums (etc) if I actually had a chance to (or thought it was reasonable). When I lived in the city I still maintained my parents' address as my current living address (so I would've had to make a decent drive just to vote). I also would've felt a bit bad voting for something like that whilst not technically still living in the area. I also was excluded (obviously) from voting for stuff in the city (which I definitely would've voted for).

What it comes down to is that I don't personally feel educated enough on the politicians to vote for them. As an electronics person, I refuse to buy a TV or a computer without doing upwards of 40 hours of research on it. That might be a $2k decision. I wouldn't feel right making a selection for a political seat (or at least contributing to it) which may have a 4 year term with less research put in. And I would feel that research would be necessary for me with EACH candidate. That's just a whole lot of time that I don't have to commit (or, as I'll freely admit, I'd rather spend on something else). It just seems like a rather large decision to be making without proper information. So I would personally feel like it is an injustice to one of the candidates and possibly the entire population...

[IBCoupe]

I see. I've left some ballots incomplete where I wasn't knowledgable enough to cast an educated vote, so I sympathize.

[AZhitman]

^ Likewise.

[IBCoupe]

I don't know if you're the same way, Greg, but I get this great feeling of self-loathing when I do. I get really disappointed in myself - I failed my civic duty to be an educated participant in the system within which I thrive.

I refuse to make an uneducated vote, but I consider it a failure on my part not to be educated enough to make an educated vote, I guess is what I'm trying to say.

[AZhitman]

I am to a certain extent.

But don't stress on it, because you could take it to extremes...

How about the "vote to retain Judge A"? Yay or Nay? Hell, I dunno. I trust the judicial standards board and the court of public opinion *just* enough to not worry about that.

Or, what about the hotly-contested race for "Deputy Assistant Treasurer" for a small town? Hell, what do I care? If they screw up, let me know - until then, it's not a politically-active position, it;s a damn job.

Actually, I wonder why a lot of positions are voted in... they're not (or shouldn't be) political, so why are they? Superintendent of Schools - why should that person's political affiliation matter? And if it does, why doesn't my position take into account my political leanings?

[AppleBonker]

Werd. My problem is I think I set the bar a little too high for the knowledge requirement to vote. I do tend to hold myself to a higher standard than anyone else.

To be completely honest, it frightens me what most people probably base their votes on. It's either strictly party lines, or political advertisements for probably 95% of the population. And basing a decision on those advertisements would be like deciding between buying two homes based on the a shifty salesman telling you one is white brick and the other red brick without any other information. I'm pretty sure I can sum up all of the tv ads I've seen in this area (ad nauseum I might add) thusly:

Candidate A: Candidate B lies and wants to raise your taxes.
Candidate B: Candidate A lies and hates people working in this state.

Done. Now vote! I'm sure that'll end up well...