Anyone who takes advantage of their own or their partner’s employer’s domestic partner benefits’ plan knows that it’s a good deal because the level of insurance attainable – especially health and dental insurance – would be price prohibitive any other way.  Most couples who elect to participate in a DP benefits plan do so after crunching the numbers as regard what kind of health insurance they could get for the non-employee partner and any non-legal-dependent children in their family should they just go out and buy it, versus what it would cost to sign up for the employed partner’s plan. Overwhelmingly, the out of pocket cost of the coverage will be much less than trying to buy like-insurance on one’s own, but a big part of the cost consideration has to do with taxes.  It is the “tax question” that will keep one fully insured partner from jumping over to their partner’s workplace provided plan, even if it’s a better set of coverage. This is not true in legal spousal relationships. Of course, given the high cost of health insurance these days, employers have tightened the rules about access in that if a person has their own employer-provide insurance plans, that person might not be able to sign up for their spouse’s plan just because the limits and costs are better. The way that the tax code related to the taxation of benefits as income (Section 162) is adhered to is, basically, if a person’s partner (regardless of sex, gender or sexual orientation) or the partner’s children are not the legal dependents of the employee (as determined by IRS Code of 1986, Section 152(a)), then any contribution that the employee makes for his/her partner or family must be made with after-tax dollars and the fair market value of the benefits (determined by a rather funky calculation that few people can really explain) is added to the employee’s income as taxable and s/he is taxed on that amount again.  It’s unfair on its face, but despite the fact that the actual value calculations are done in various manners that lack both consistency and cogency; and despite the fact that many of the 9000 or more organizations who offer DP Benefits handle these matters in myriad ways, generally speaking, DP Benefits are taxable in a way that spousal or legal dependent benefits are not. So therein lies an aspect of the cost of availing oneself of them. There are two very important Acts before Congress right now that would seek to make this inequity moot.  The only differentiation between them is that one is in the House (House Rule or HR 1820) and the other is in the Senate (S. 1556). The House Rule is officially titled “Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act of 2007” and the Senate version is called “Tax Equity for Domestic Partner and Health Plan Beneficiaries Act”. In this case, a rose by any other name… Both Acts would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 so that, for employer-provided health care plans only, the definition of a legal dependent would be extended to include non-married partners and children meeting certain criteria of dependency so that pre-tax dollars (and therefore Cafeteria Plan benefits’ withholdings and Health Care Savings Accounts) could be used to pay the employee’s share of partner and family benefits and the fair market value of the benefits would no longer be added to an employee’s income and taxed again as additional gross income. All people who are currently taking advantage of DP Benefits’ plans, be they straight, gay or bisexual, or all people who are interested in basic equity should make a point to send their Representative and Senators a quick email urging them to vote to pass HR 1820 and S 1556.  This is a bi-partisan effort, having been introduced in the Senate by Democrat Schumer of NY and Republican Smith of Oregon.  It has 10 co-sponsors as of the end of July from both parties and is currently in the Committee on Finance. In the House, the bill was introduced by Democrat Jim McDermott of WA and also enjoys bi-partisan support and 8 co-sponsors. It is currently in the Ways and Means Committee.  Federal Legislation can be tracked using the THOMAS website which is maintained by the Library of Congress to track federal legislation. You can also go to the main websites of the House and the Senate and very easily send an email to your Representatives in Congress urging them to vote yes for the Bills when they hit the respective floors of Congress. And if your Representative happens to be a member of the Senate Finance Committee or House Ways and Means, all the better. You can find out who your Representatives are by searching on your State. In some states, you may have to know your House District number, but this is easily attainable by calling your County offices’ voter registration department. The HRC is also spearheading an effort called the Business Coalition for Benefits Tax Equity in which they are working with employers of all kinds to organizationally lobby Congress for passage of these Bills. You can visit the HRC site at www.hrc.org to get more information about how you could approach your company to join this effort. Not surprisingly, there will be those who will want to block this basic provision of tax equity by claiming that its passage would mean that all employers have to offer DP Benefits. This is not even within the realm of possibility (even States with civil unions or DP registries can or do mandate that health benefits be offered by private employers in those states), but it won’t stop people with their own agendas from trying to put out such ridiculous propaganda (the upshot of which is to make the case that if “gay people” get employer-provided health care, “regular people” will have to pay more for theirs or their access will suffer. These people will stop at nothing.) We live in a world in which health care access for all that is equitably priced and fairly obtained is a major issue in most, if not all, of our lives. I urge you to keep track of these important aspects of access to health care for all regardless of sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, marital status or any other aspect of our diversity as human beings.