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: Sen. Warnock, Raphael G. [D-GA]
Target Audience
Population: Surviving spouses of deceased Armed Forces members or veterans
Estimated Size: 50000
- The bill targets surviving spouses of deceased Armed Forces members, which includes both active duty and veterans.
- Surviving spouses may lose certain benefits upon remarriage, but this bill aims to extend those benefits regardless of their marital status.
- Benefits mentioned include dependency and indemnity compensation and commissary and exchange privileges, which are specific to military context.
- A significant portion of the U.S. population serves or has served in the military, suggesting a considerable number may be impacted.
Reasoning
- This policy primarily impacts surviving spouses of deceased Armed Forces members or veterans who have remarried. While this group may not be large compared to the total U.S. population, it has a significant presence due to the extensive size of the military community.
- The policy's financial support, such as dependency and indemnity compensation, is likely to influence the financial security and overall wellbeing of these individuals.
- The availability of commissary and exchange privileges enhances everyday living by providing access to discounted goods, which can be particularly beneficial for those on fixed incomes.
- Given the emotional and financial challenges faced by military families who lose a member, maintaining or improving benefits on remarriage directly influences their wellbeing.
- Considering the policy budget, the costs are manageable within the constraints if the targeted population is accurately estimated as not exceeding 50,000 people initially.
Simulated Interviews
Retired (Texas)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I always felt a loss when I lost some benefits after remarrying. This policy really helps give back a sense of belonging and security.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Software Engineer (California)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Right now, I don’t get the policy’s benefits because I’ve not remarried, but knowing it’s there offers peace of mind for the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Part-time Teacher (Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Losing the benefits after my first marriage ended was financially challenging. This act provides much-needed support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retired military personnel (Illinois)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy eases worries about losing exchange benefits; helps me stay connected to the military community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Nurse (Virginia)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While remarriage isn’t in my plan now, this policy gives me assurance for future flexibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Community Organizer (North Carolina)
Age: 59 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hesitated with remarriage because of potential loss of benefits. This law directly addresses my concerns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Truck Driver (Ohio)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The loss of military benefits cut deep into our household support. This policy will make things right.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Grocery Store Assistant (Arizona)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m worried about money in retirement; keeping these benefits helps settle my mind.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Freelance Writer (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every bit of financial help matters with today's costs. This policy is very welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Retired Officer (Washington)
Age: 80 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Really glad this policy's in place. The military community has been my life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $155000000 (Low: $105000000, High: $205000000)
Year 3: $160000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $210000000)
Year 5: $170000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $220000000)
Year 10: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- Estimating the exact number of surviving spouses who will remarry and hence benefit from the policy is challenging.
- The policy requires detailed coordination with military and veteran benefit systems.
- Long-term demographic trends, such as life expectancy and marriage rates among beneficiaries, can greatly affect future cost estimates.