This proposal sounds like an excellent idea.  Others have raised some good points of concern, but I'll just take a moment to address those.

• The proposal would not cost the taxpayers anything. Employees would have to pay 100% of the cost of OQA premiums for coverage. This would be in contrast to current state benefits that pay over 80% of the cost of premiums for employees, spouses and covered dependents.  It should actually do the opposite, and cost taxpayers less--see below under additional benefits.
• Only one adult in an employee’s household (either a spouse or an “otherwise qualified adult”) could be covered;
• Opportunity for abuse would be limited because, to qualify as an OQA, the adult would have to have lived in the employee's household for 12 months and would have to be domiciled in Virginia (and, therefore, a Virginia taxpayer if he/she has taxable income); and
• A person who is an employee in the household or a tenant, boarder, or roomer would not qualify as an OQA;
• The proposal would not violate the so-called marriage amendment. The language of the proposal tracks the framework okayed by McDonnell in his opinion to John Casteen on UVA gym benefits. The proposal tracks similar programs in place at Michigan state universities, where there is also a constitutional amendment prohibiting recognition of same-sex relationships, and at Georgetown University, a private Catholic university.

Additional benefits of this proposal are below.
• This proposal would permit employees an additional choice of health insurance coverage available at their expense.
• If offered, health insurance coverage would be available to some adults and children who might otherwise be uninsured.   As we all know, uninsured cost taxpayers a lot of money each year.  Here are some numbers from Families USA: In 2007, 94 million people were uninsured and received $116B worth of care--or $1250 per uninsured individual.  That's all coming out of taxpayers' pockets.  This proposal would allow many of those uninsured to be insured--and take the burden from the taxpayers.
• Offering such benefits will bring state agencies and higher education institutions in line with prevailing benefits practices of employers of choice in Virginia and across the nation, and enhance recruiting and retention of the best and the brightest. 66% of the top private employers in Virginia offer such benefits. Almost 60% of the Fortune 500 companies choose to offer such expanded benefits to their employees. At least 12 Virginia-based Fortune 500 or Fortune 1000 companies offer such benefits including: Altria Group, Capital One, CarMax, Dominion Resources, Gannett, Genworth, MCI Group, MeadWestvaco, Owens & Minor, Philip Morris USA, SprintNextel, and SLM Corp. (Sallie Mae).

I know some highly religious individuals may object to my personal point, but I feel it is a good one to make. My fiancee and I have been living together for 7 years.  We're going to get married, eventually, but that shouldn't be something mandated by the government for me to provide for her needs.  Despite us sharing housing expenses, buying groceries together, having joint checking accounts, and otherwise living as a married couple, we have to be on separate, expensive insurance policies at our respective jobs simply because we haven't gotten married.  Now, shouldn't two consenting, qualiftying adults, such as in this case, be permitted to be on the same insurance plan?

Or, perhaps a better question: Who could it possibly hurt?

I did the math for my employer, and even paying 100% of the health insurance costs, our family would save almost $200.00 each month on health insurance.  Imagine what an extra $200.00/month per family in Virginia could do for our ailing economy.  Sticking with my personal experience, I could afford to get a mortgage on a house (we currently rent), get a newer vehicle (mine is paid off, so no money going anywhere with that), and probably splurge on non-necessities like going out to dinner and buying extras.

So, it's going to cost taxpayers less, provide insurance for the uninsured or underinsured, AND stimulate the economy.

What's not to like?