Dr. Watson shared rooms with Sherlock Holmes.  If  Watson were a state employee, he could, under this proposal, buy health coverage for Holmes even though Holmes, as a private investigator, would find it very expensive to buy a policy on his own.   They were only friends, but in a sense family too.  Why should not good friends and and long-standing roommates be able to do this?  Why shouldn't Watson be able to buy his friend this coverage?   Why should the state be able to dictate to Watson who he can and cannot protect as a member of his household?   

You can buy coverage for a spouse with whom you have an unhealthy relationship.  The state does not endorse the nature of your relationship with your wife in allowing you to buy coverage for her.   The state does not endorse your relationship with your roommate in allowing you to buy coverage for him.  In neither case is the nature of the relationship the state's business.   The only thing that concerns the state in either case is whether or not the person in question is actually part of your household. 

Any consideration of the nature of the relationship is beside the question and irrelevant.  Being able to help all members of your household obtain health coverage is a benefit that may make state jobs more attractive to better candidates at a lower cost than paying higher salaries.  It also is a fundamentally moral thing to do, as it could reduce the number of people who at present are unable to obtain health coverage.

A good idea, all the way around.