And if she’s currently employed and leaving her job-with-benefits, why isn’t she taking advantage of COBRA or the policies available under the ACA? Yes I know COBRA’s expensive, been there done that, but still, this whole idea isn’t making sense to me either. 
If Debbie is an attorney with years of experience considering striking out on her own in a law firm I’d hope she’d be making a LOT more than 50-60K. And I can’t help but agree with astro that being on the verge of major surgery is about the last scenario you’d ever want to quit your job and start a new law firm.
I’ve just got to ask the same question I asked before. What is in this for YOU? We know what’s in it for Debbie. We can speculate what is in it for Louise. But what is in it for YOU? What upside is there for you for your girlfriend, who you have only recently started dating and there fore you logically have a lot to think about regarding your future, to be legally tied to a woman you don’t know for a period of time neither you nor they have all that much control over? Can you see anything good happening to YOU–not to Louise, not to Debbie–as a result of this merger? And asking this question of yourself is not selfish, it’s protecting your own interests. Things that happen in a relationship that can only be of benefit to one side, and which can be extremely damaging to the relationship as a whole, are best avoided at any time, let alone right at the start of one.
Frankly, I cannot see you or your relationship coming out of this situation unscathed. At best Debbie recovers relatively quickly from the surgery, she is able to divorce Louise with a minimum of fuss and then it’s loads of paperwork. But the bad things that can happen are many.
“Damn I’m sick of my job. I know! I’ll quit my job and strike out on my own. Yay! Except I have surgery tomorrow! And if I lose my insurance I’m pretty much literally going to die. Damn it! I know! I’ll gay-marry my best friend and get on her insurance. This is a much better idea than sticking with a crappy job I hate but has gold-plated government health insurance!”
[QUOTE=astro]
As a an additional point to my previous post where in the US is a 40 YO attorney with years of experience working for the state’s attorney’s office paid less that 50K-60K (or more) annually? Your OP makes it sound like this woman is going to be living out of her car unless your girlfriend steps up.
She’s a single woman making 50-60K annually why is it so critically necessary for your girlfriend to step up in this scenario? Because the attorney doesn’t like her job? Because she is deciding against all common sense to go out on her own now, when she needs coverage the most?
[/QUOTE]
I can honestly say I don’t know the answer to either question. I haven’t discussed this with them at length yet. However, I’m having dinner with Louise tonight and do intend to bring it up.
I didn’t really think of anything being in it for me, but I will admit that something doesn’t add up here.
Although it may not legally be fraud, it does meet the definition of fraud:
fraud - deceit or trickery perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage
Marriage is not the same thing as picking your +1 on a party invitation. It has some commonly understood meaning. Our culture understands that marriage signifies a long-term pair-bond with the intention of creating a life-long family relationship. Benefits come with marriage because of how we understand that relationship. If people start treating it as a nothing more than a form to fill out to get special treatment, then there will not be the same benefits. People who get married for real will have an additional burden to prove that they truly are creating a family and not just trying to game the system.
You have a moral obligation not to go along with this. Even if there is nothing legally stopping it, from a moral perspective you should not allow it. I could perhaps understand it if her life was threatened and she had no other option, but that’s not the case here. She has plenty of other options–it’s just that this marriage trick is the cheapest.
I am more inclined to agree with this (and again, I think the whole affair is a tremendously stupid though legal concept). Having said that, you’re still painting with an overly broad brush. If our culture genuinely understood that marriage was a long-term pair bond we wouldn’t have embraced no-fault divorce.
I read the whole tread and found it intriguing. Not to pry (although that is exactly what I’m doing), but what was the outcome of the dinner?
Are you going to allow it? And is there a sub story/reason that reviled itself?
My vote for best misspelling of the day!
I looked at your cite. I didn’t see anything relevant to the thread. Under medical fraud other it mentioned non-auto injury reported. Nothing about following the rules (getting married) and somehow committing fraud.
What the OP describes seems like more than a minefield-more like an explosion in progress, but getting married for the insurance isn’t fraud.
that is an interesting cite. It seems to me that within that cite there is a contradiction. First the professor says fraud in other areas of law include getting married for the purpose of obtaining insurance. Then later the professor says that for the most part insurance companies accept a valid marriage as sufficient for insurance. Perhaps what it really says (I am not convinced either way) is that while technically true that marriage solely for a benifit is invalid, no insurance company will fight it because it is too hard to prove. Or not?
That’s one way to look at it. Marriage for reasons other than love doesn’t seem to be considered fraud against those OUTSIDE the marriage (with the exception of immigration issues, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish) but it can be construed to be fraud against those INSIDE the marriage. As the citation says, the remedy is annulment, and that can only be sought by one of the spouses (or their guardian, if underage).
It could be annulled by an estate beneficiary after the fact, too.