Seriously?! I have been noticing you in thread after thread, simply performing a contrarian role. Just stop.
The op stated up front that his GIRLFRIEND wants to marry her friend for the purpose of providing insurance.
All you’ve done is disagree. You’ve cited nothing. His girlfriend has admitted to him that her intent is to provide insurance. That’s it. I gave a cite that defines fraud in this manner. Insurance fraud occurs when any act is committed with the intent to fraudulently obtain some benefit or advantage to which they are not otherwise entitled.
From the University of Virginia School of Law:
Marriage fraud- In family law, marriage fraud is lying to the person you are marrying about your willingness to have children or sex with them, and the remedy is an annulment — it’s as if the marriage never existed. In other areas of law, it’s marrying to get a particular benefit — a tax break, immigration status, health insurance, social security benefits, military benefits, even a gym membership.
Hmm… Why Louise? Why not a man? Are you sure there’s nothing going on between them? Also - how strong is their friendship? They’re friends now, but how about in the face of divorce and division of assets?
Nobody is lying to the person they are marrying. Jesus Christ, do you even read the crap you post? If you had read farther down the page of the UVA professor’s article, you’d have seen that she absolutely disagrees with you. I have my insurance license, and I disagree with you. Everybody in this thread disagrees with you.
Give it up, you’re wrong.
From that same link:
Bolding mine.
So, your own cite says this is not insurance fraud since they will be legally married.
Both the cite I gave and the ops girlfriend specified a marriage for the purpose of getting insurance. It wasn’t implied, she came right out and said that’s why she was doing it. There was no discussion of wanting to share their lives together or any other metric you’d like to apply to a marriage. She asked her boyfriend, the guy she’s DATING, how he felt about her getting married as a matter of convenience for someone else.
Yes, and according to the cite you gave, that is totally legal.
Whether or not it’s a good idea is different from whether it’s legal, but according to your own cite it’s not illegal.
EDIT: Let me reword your own cite for clarity.
If you are not legally married, no matter the reason that you are not married, and you pretend to be married to get health insurance, then it’s fraud.
If you are legally married, no matter the reason that you are married, and you use that legal marriage to get health insurance, then it is NOT fraud.
The OP’s girlfriend is proposing a legal marriage to another woman. Full stop. They will get married. That is legal in their state. Their reasons for getting married have no effect on the validity of this marriage, since it is not for immigration purposes. Since they would then be legally married, the other woman is eligible for health insurance. Since they are legally married, it is not fraud.
They aren’t legally married when she tells her BOYFRIEND the express reason she’s doing it is for the singular purpose of including someone on her insurance. That’s fraud and that’s what specifically mentioned in the cite I gave (In other areas of law, it’s marrying to get a particular benefit — a tax break, immigration status, health insurance, social security benefits, military benefits, even a gym membership.). A marriage license is only as legitimate as the intent behind it and that’s recognized and prosecuted in cases involving immigration.
No, the cite I gave was specific that you can’t marry someone for the purpose of transferring benefits.
And what’s mind boggling is that nobody mentioned why a professional can’t get insurance since ACA removed pre-existing conditions as a reason to exclude someone. If the woman in question is low on funds then ACA covers that too with either medicaid or a subsidized policy. It’s likely that adding someone to a policy increases the premiums which in this case the cost would be handled by ACA. None of this scenario makes sense and it invites all kinds of problems involving inheritance in the event of a death. Add child custody and child support issues if the op fathers a child.
I manage a few properties, one of which is government subsidized. I currently have a tenant who listed herself as single on her application but later in conversation with me referred to her “hubby” (fuck me, I hate that word). When I asked her to clarify, she informed me that she’s technically divorced and that she did so because said hubby makes too much money and she was unable to receive government benefits.
Because rent at that property is based on income and she has none except for a small amount of general assistance, her rent is less than $40/month. The rest is subsidized by the government. Actually, her entire rent is because her only income comes from the government.
I told the management company I work for that she had disclosed this information to me. Seems like clear fraud because I know damn well she maintains a relationship with her ex and am reasonably assuming that she benefits from his paychecks.
Nobody cares. They’re technically not married and he’s not on the lease so his income will never have to be declared. Even with her admission, nobody cares. Or maybe they do and there just isn’t anything they can do.
I can’t see how marrying for insurance (which straight people do all the time) is fraud. Shady maybe, and not really taking the spirit of marriage seriously, but not fraud.
Can you show where, in the marriage laws of any state, there is a requirement that the parties be in love with each other, and that marriages not founded on love are legally invalid? Because I’m not aware of any such laws in any state in the Union, which means that the marriage discussed by the OP is entirely, 100% legal.
On top of all this the op’s girlfriend is signing on to:
-legal liability for her friend’s debt
-estate problems in the event of her untimely death
-The increased cost of adding a dependent
-tax issues
-child custody issues
Yes, I gave the cite already for what is considered a fraudulent marriage and it included doing so for the purpose of extending a benefit. It is the same reasoning behind marriages entered into to gain citizenship. Both are done for the same reason, to extend a benefit.
If you want to argue the difficulty involved prosecuting that’s fine but the op made the case that his girlfriend would explicitly do it for the purpose of extending a benefit.
Nobody is saying it’s smart. Just that it’s legal.
Depending on your situation full ACA coverage can be quite expensive. Whatever this person has re medical issues must be hugely expensive to take care of. If the OP’s “girlfriend” has decent government or high level corporate style coverage adding a spouse to the existing gold plated plan is probably far less expensive than a stand alone policy for that person. But as you point out doing this stunt to save a few thousand dollars a year on insurance premiums seems to be barely worth it once you consider all the entanglements involved.
Unless the 40 something professional is in dire straights health-wise and financially doing this makes little sense. The OPs girlfriend is coming off as someone who doesn’t have the best judgment or has personal motivations for doing this she has not disclosed fully to the OP. There’s a huge chunk of logic missing from the OP’s description of the rationale for what’s going on here.
Yes well great, except nobody seems to grasp that an agreement entered legally between 2 people becomes illegal if it’s for the sole purpose of extending a benefit. There is established law regarding immigration and the same principle applies to what I cited earlier which includes insurance benefits.
Now I think that’s damn hard to prove and nobody is ever going to challenge it unless something occurs to make it financially viable to do so. And even then there needs to be a person who comes forward and deliberately drops the proverbial dime.
This isn’t a matter of signing a piece of paper and then going their separate ways - this is a full-blown you-either-are-or-are-not marriage you are looking at - yes, survivor benefits, spousal support, all of those things come into play.
And one for the lawyers: doesn’t someone need to do the “I now pronounce you” bit before they are legally married?
When my sis got married, the Rev told them during rehearsal that if he would really say those words, they, having a valid license at the time, would have been legally married by the rehearsal.
Doesn’t the same rule apply - just having a license does not make you married.
Given the enormity of the legal ramifications of marriage, only a fool would go in without a pre-nup reviewed by the person who wrote that state’s law regarding pre-nups.
I don’t know if I would tell her you don’t want her doing this as much as I would want nothing to do with anyone foolish enough to do something like this.
And make that a +1 as to why this woman cannot get health insurance. My guess is that it is not “can’t get” but “it would be cheaper if”.
Friends do not propose sham marriages to friends.
Run.
never mind the legality, just run.
Czarcasm:
Your cite doesn’t support this assertion. Could you please provide a cite that actually does?
No, you haven’t.