Bill Overview
Title: Love Lives On Act of 2022
Description: This bill extends various benefit programs and services for surviving spouses of deceased members of the Armed Forces or veterans, including by extending entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation to surviving spouses who remarry, continuing eligibility for the Survivor Benefit Plan for certain surviving spouses who remarry, and providing commissary and exchange privileges to surviving spouses, regardless of marital status.
Sponsors: Rep. Phillips, Dean [D-MN-3]
Target Audience
Population: Surviving spouses of deceased Armed Forces members or veterans worldwide who may remarry
Estimated Size: 150000
- The bill specifically mentions surviving spouses of deceased members of the Armed Forces or veterans as the primary affected group.
- Surviving spouses who remarry are highlighted in this bill, which is a specific subgroup of all surviving spouses who typically lose certain benefits upon remarriage.
- Current beneficiaries of programs like the dependency and indemnity compensation, Survivor Benefit Plan, and commissary and exchange privileges will be directly influenced by these changes.
Reasoning
- The primary target population is surviving spouses of deceased Armed Forces members or veterans, especially those considering remarriage.
- The budget limit demands that the policy should impact only a proportion of the target population initially.
- There is a diversity of age, gender, and circumstances among surviving spouses, influencing how the policy may be perceived and its real-world impact.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (San Diego, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have often felt that remarrying shouldn't mean losing the benefits that were meant for my kids' and my own wellbeing.
- This policy really gives me hope that we can be treated more fairly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Losing access to military benefits upon remarriage has been tough, especially financially.
- I think it's about time these rules change for the better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Retired nurse (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Even though I haven't remarried, knowing that I could without losing benefits is reassuring.
- The policy doesn't impact me immediately, but represents positive change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small business owner (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I want to remarry, but the loss of benefits has been a big concern.
- This policy change could be life-changing for many of us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Software developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My spouse worries a lot about losing benefits for our family.
- I support any changes that provide more security for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired teacher (Charleston, SC)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My remarriage should not mean I lose what my late husband earned for us.
- The change in this policy will be a financial relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Healthcare worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been cautious about remarrying due to losing benefits.
- This policy makes it viable to plan my future without fear.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Veteran advocate (Fort Worth, TX)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a veteran advocate, I see the potential benefits of these changes for many people I work with.
- Personally, it supports my future options in terms of relationships without losing provisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Policy analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I work in policy, this hits home. The benefits should not be tied to someone's decision to remarry.
- It's a progressive step in the right direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel this policy recognizes the sacrifices and needs of survivors importantly.
- It's encouraging that benefits could assist if I choose a partner under such circumstances again.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $310000000 (Low: $260000000, High: $360000000)
Year 3: $320000000 (Low: $270000000, High: $370000000)
Year 5: $330000000 (Low: $280000000, High: $380000000)
Year 10: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Year 100: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)
Key Considerations
- The exact number of surviving spouses who would remarry and, therefore, impact cost calculations is uncertain.
- Implementation and administrative costs associated with extending benefits must be considered.
- Potential for changes in dependency and indemnity benefits for spouses who previously lost benefits due to remarriage could significantly affect future liabilities.