Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Human Resource Management
 
Board
Department of Human Resource Management
 
chapter
Commonwealth of Virginia Health Benefits Program [1 VAC 55 ‑ 20]
Action This action will amend section 1VAC 55 320(E) to include adults, other than spouses and incapacitated adult children, as participants in the Health Benefits Plan for State Employees
Stage NOIRA
Comment Period Ended on 12/23/2009
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
12/16/09  8:58 am
Commenter: Jennifer Novesky

No cost equality FOR ALL!
 

As a lesbian living in northern Virginia, I wholeheartedly support this proposal.  It would permit employees an additional choice of health insurance coverage available at OUR OWN expense. 
It might offer health insurance to adults and children who might otherwise be uninsured.
 

There are sooooo many benefits to approving this proposal.  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).

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.  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.

Lastly, to other critics, this 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.   While I hope that this amendment would someday be overturned, that is not to say that passing this proposal is not a step in the right direction.

Thank you.

CommentID: 10732