Leaderboard

Fairness is a relevant topic, especially in areas touched by tax policy, where subsidies create economic distortions. Distortions can be viewed as unfair to an individual or group or viewed as beneficial to the larger society, based on some notion of values of the political winners. The unfortunate history of subsidizing employer-provided health benefits is an issue that is a deeper level in the same mine shaft as this topic of employer subsidies of marriage and children. There are more overt examples of subsidy or penalty of marriage and children. The institutions and culture created by tax subsidy for employer-provided healthcare are now a big factors in the political arena in the debate about how best to make health care available and affordable. It is a shame that the elements are not recognized for what they are so they can be objectively evaluated in instead of manipulated by emotional appeals. The fight did not start with jpod's observations.

And, as my favorite priest once said, “People in Hell want ice water, too.”

An employer can do it any way, no need to ask marital status when the employee selects coverage. Remember, a married employee does not need to select family coverage, in fact many dual income couples will select single for one and single for the other.

I think it's pretty unreasonable. The benefit is identical (100% of health ins to employee and spouse/children). The fact that OP does not have a spouse or children to cover does not make the benefit unfair. The employers cost for that benefit is an entirely separate issue.

Not only is it legal, but unless there is a 125 plan it may be illegal to do it any other way! Remember employers are forbidden from asking marital status or family status. So if an employer offers family medical coverage a new employee that is single has no way of communicating the fact that they are single until after hired. A cafeteria plan can smooth the difference out equitably.

Are you harmed?