being gay is expensive

[rm]

The financial realities of being in a same-sex primary partnership

In [The New York Times's] worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.

Comments

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Yikes! That's a heck of a high price.

[askeladden.livejournal.com]

Bleh. Suxx0r.

[askeladden.livejournal.com]

Though you and I are in a similar situation, being freelancers partnered to academics. If, as might happen, their income remains lower than ours for quite a while (tenure being what it is), but they get health benefits through their jobs which we're able to take advantage of (assuming you guys get a legal domestic partnership somewhere down the line), what situation does that put us in, with respect to the best/worst scenarios in the article? They assumed that the higher-earning partner would have better health insurance, so I'm not sure how to extrapolate the effects when it's the lower-earning partner who's covered.

[misch.livejournal.com]

They have a workbook that details their methodologies, but I'm not certain that it will cover the answer to your question.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I thought it was interesting how close their two examples were to our current finances and to our potential future finances. And my various health insurance issues over the last year have made me very aware of the numbers we're each paying on that end, so yeah.

[drfardook.livejournal.com]

I would have liked to see them factor in gender as well. Two women being partners will take an extra hit since they're (in most industries) both getting hit by Lack Of A Willie penalty on their wages.

Either way, ouchie.

[askeladden.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I'm currently uninsured (have been for going on three years), and K. will stop being insured after this semester, then if the graduate school plan is still a go, she'll probably be able to purchase school insurance again beginning next fall. What does she do in the interim? Go without? Or is that really bad? Can we count on the "no preexisting conditions" legislation taking effect, should (ghu forbid) something happen between January and next fall? I have no idea where to even start on this problem.

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

In Australia, from this year, same-sex partners are treated the same way as opposite-sex partners in healthcare, taxation, wills, superannuation and unemployment/disability payments. And de facto partners are treated the same as married people. It can happen, even without same-sex marriage on the agenda!

[alba17.livejournal.com]

Not to mention we don't get any federal benefits that married couples do, such as Social Security. We are treated as strangers for tax purposes as well. (I'm sure that's in there.)

[alba17.livejournal.com]

That's fantastic! Personally, that's more important to me than marriage, since I don't care about getting married, although I certainly appreciate the symbolism of marriage. I mainly want the legal benefits.

[newsbean.livejournal.com]

Having just been through this: There is insurance that one can buy specifically for short periods of time. It's cheaper and really only covers catastrophic things, but it means that you have continuous coverage, which is really important.

Even if healthcare reform goes through, nothing is slated to take effect until 2013 (if I recall correctly). So, I would not count on preexisting conditions being a non-issue next fall.

[newsbean.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it definitely touched on the social security issue, that was part of the cost.

[askeladden.livejournal.com]

Thank you. That's extremely good information.