Social Security, Medicare, and legal same sex marriage.

[DonTom]

I soon turn 65. Part B medicare would cost me, if I were single, $209.80 per month at my income level as my income (even as retired) is above the $107,000.00 per year where Part B doubles the cost. If I earned less, part B would cost exactly half of that, $104.90 per month.

But for a married person, which I now am, I SHOULD only have to pay the $104.90 per month because when my income is added to Tom's it is less than the $214,000.00 where the part B price doubles for a married couple. So I should only have to pay the $104.90 per month. Simple, isn't it??

But the SS goes by a two year old federal tax return (2012) that says I am single. However, that can be changed at the SS office, which we tried to do today, to no avail. We had our income tax papers, as well as original marriage certificate and all other required info. with us.

After a long wait at the Reno SS office, they tell us that nationwide they cannot deal with same sex couples, even in states where legal under state laws (such as CA)because their SS software is not yet updated for such. It still requires a male and a female to be entered in their computers at any SS office in the country.

So what I was told is that they WILL take the higher amount out of my SS checks of $204.80 each month and some time in the future I should be able to fight to get it back.

Ever hear of such BS? A year after same sex marriage is legal they still have not straightened this out?

-Don- Reno, NV

[Ken]

Sounds like a pretty simple software code change to me, Don. If your bureaucratic system is anything like ours they will have same sex entries sorted in a couple of years but will not have set up any software coding to enable couples like you and Tom to - easily - reclaim your overpayments. Presumably when it is all sorted out they will pay you interest on the amount they have overcharged you and Tom - Oops, that's more software coding isn't it?

Keep your fingers crossed for a quick resolution (but don't hold your breath).

Ken.

[DonTom]

Sounds like a pretty simple software code change to me, Don. If your bureaucratic system is anything like ours they will have same sex entries sorted in a couple of years but will not have set up any software coding to enable couples like you and Tom to - easily - reclaim your overpayments. Presumably when it is all sorted out they will pay you interest on the amount they have overcharged you and Tom - Oops, that's more software coding isn't it?

Keep your fingers crossed for a quick resolution (but don't hold your breath).

Ken.

I think perhaps part of the problem is that for now, they get to hold on to a lot more money, so there is no hurry for them to fix it.

There at the SS office, they told me some stories about them having to hold survival benefits and such from same sex couples. IOW, many are in much worse saturation than me on this software update problem.

I was told they probably won't fix it until same sex marriage is legal in every state. That could be many years from now.

-Don- Reno, NV

[MikeHalloran]

I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Yeah, they'll take the money until their rules change.
When that happens, I'd expect them to settle up with no fuss.
The Social Security Administration seems to be one of our least screwed up government agencies.
So far (I'm 69), no SS agent has lied to me, or made a statement that turned out to be untrue, or otherwise behaved in other than a completely professional manner, and every one of them seemed to have a pretty good idea what they were doing.

That said, it wouldn't hurt to write your congresscritters and describe your situation, as politely and factually as you have here.

[grouch]

I was listening to the news today and a county clerk near here is refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples because of her religious beliefs. I seem to remember something in the constitution about separation of church and state. She also said this country was founded on marriage being between a man and woman. Um....no. Go back far enough, and a monister was FORBIDDEN to marry couples. Marriage was considered a civil union. It was a legal contract that one partner would raise the issue of that union. Okay, that part does require one of each. Mostly what I hear is someone trying to force their religious beliefs on someone else. Isn't there something about freedom of religion in the constitution too?

A gal at work got a divorce from her partner. Both women went their own way. The courts didn't seem to have a problem charging fees for the splitting of property.

[MikeHalloran]

Separation of church and state ultimately means that no government should be in the marriage business, and marriage should have no legal significance.

That would resolve all the squabbling about who can or can not marry. Okay, it would remove the squabbling from the courts and legislatures, and transfer it to the religious organizations's premises, where it belongs.

It would simplify the tax code slightly, since there would be no 'marriage penalty' or 'single person penatly', and no joint returns.