Or food, for that matter.
I also don’t have much practical advice, other than to see a lawyer. But I recall reading online about somewhat similar issues for parents of mentally disabled children. The dilemma was how to ensure that care is provided for the child, and state benefits are made available to the child, without the parents going bankrupt, etc. One of the things I read involved setting up a trust that specifically says it’s for “luxuries” for the child – i.e. the trust specifically is NOT designed to pay for food, housing, medication, etc. But it IS designed to pay for buying books, entertainment, etc. Sorry I don’t have more info. If you google on “medicaid divorce” you might find more info specific to your situation. Good luck to both of you, this is clearly a very difficult decision.
Here are some things I found while googling “medicaid divorce”…
http://www.premack.com/columns/1998/981016.htm
http://www.divorcesource.com/research/edj/pensions/95sep104.shtml
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/pd111601h.html
Agree.
With the exception of a lawyer, you do not have a right to be provided (at no cost) anything material or tangible, since such a right would necessitate stealing property from someone else, and would thus be immoral. This includes food, clothing, shelter, and even oxygen.
Um, no. We receive all kinds tangible and material benefits that are obtained from the public at large through taxation. Roads, for example, or schools. Do children not have a right to be educated? Don’t your taxes pay for their school buildings, books, teachers, etc.?
Civilized societies attempt to provide for the less fortunate by subsidizing their food, clothing and shelter, as well as other essentials such as medicine. Would it be better to simply let those who are not able to support themselves fully die? Or should they be expected to beg on the street corner?
BTW: This should really be moved to GD.
Sure, but I’m talking about inalienable rights here, not services.
Like any other service, education is not a right. It’s a privilege and a luxury, and someone needs to pay for it.
But is the alternative no less evil? In other words, should people be forced – at gun point – to provide for the needy? Or should charity be voluntary? And to answer your question… the needy can be supported by family, charities, and churches. It is immoral to force people – at gun point – to provide for the needy. All charity should be voluntary.
No, education is not a privilege and a luxury, and neither is basic life support. Providing education is not charity. It’s a part of the obligation of living in a civilized society. Unless, of course, you prefer anarchy.
Your methods have been tried. Ever read Dickens? Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
MLS: We’re arguing about opinions here, not facts. And our opinions happen to differ. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I think you’re also disagreeing with the founders of the nation, then, as well. Something about inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The OP was not asking for opinions on the social services system. She was asking how she can make sure her husband is cared for. So why don’t you start a thread in GD instead of hijacking her thread?
So to save money, you dropped insurance coverage? 
Since this thread has now moved into GD territory, I’m moving it to GD.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
There are as many reasons to divorce as there are to get married. I wouldn’t think twice about it. Religion has attached something to marriage that should not be there in a secular society. If you are religious and divorce him, well…you have a completely different set of problems. As far as the secular sanctity of marriage, there ain’t none. Do what you have to do and hope for the best. They’ll probably think of some way to screw you, but you gotta do what you can to help him.
As far as alimony or whatever, big deal…the money is going into the same pot…just in a round about way.
Since we’re now in GD, I’ll toss my $.02 in about the morality of this:
Go ahead and do what is best for your family. If you can get a divorce on paper that will help out financially then go for it. Don’t give it a second thought.
As long as our government continues to foolishly treat everybody differently based on how much we make, they should expect that people are going to make personal decisions to maximize their utility from such programs.
Old people who require nursing home care routinely give away much of their money so that they don’t have it all taken away. Once their broke, the government picks up the tab. Any financial planner or tax expert will tell you that this is standard practice, and there is nothing immoral about it.
Marriage is (among other things) a financial commitment. If this element of the legal agreement (marriage) no longer makes financial sense for you then you have every right to go ahead and end it. It doesn’t mean that you love your husband any less.
Good luck with whatever you decide. I’d recommend talking with a professional. Also, it’s worth noting again what others have said about your loss of rights being a part of this decision.
And you were probably right, but the opinions of those people are worse than useless; they are harmful.
The real problem here is that our social services system forces people to get divorced in order to obtain what should be a universal right.
I see no moral problem with “gaming” the system as long as you do so without committing fraud. This is fundamentally no different than using a tax shelter, except in this case you’re doing it to substantially improve someone’s quality of life, which is morally far more justified than doing it simply to pad one’s bank account.
I see no point in overly concerning yourself with the opinions of hypocrits like Crafter_Man.
No, the thread did not move into GD territory. A couple of posters tried to drag it there. Most stayed within the bounds of GQ. Of IMHO, at least.
Those who insisted upon straying should be admonished, not the OP. AuGratin called for, and got some, factual answers.
Peace,
mangeorge
I remember hearing a lot about the so-called “marriage penalty” in income tax. I personally know of a few couples (well-off) who did divorce in name only to avoid this tax. I know little about the details, but I never heard anyone say it (divorcing) was immoral. Some thought of it as a sacrifice. Go figure!
Ya know, for all those out there who believe that this would constitute “stealing” from people who are within the ‘boundaries of the law,’ I have this to (repeat probably) say:
There are so many who don’t/haven’t or never will use these benefits because they’re either not truly needy or don’t perceive themselves to be. Or even, sadly, similar to jsgoddess’ situation. I feel that anyone like that is more than welcome to have my share. Obviously, I don’t think this is unethical, immoral or illegal. Of course, as show here, some folks’ MMV.
She has never said anything about having dropped any form of medical coverage. She is trying to seek coverage to pay for bills that are clearly not covered now.
Is this true? For example, my friend “lives with” another - “lives with” in the sense that he’s her roommate. She pays him rent and a share of the utilities, and that’s the extent of their relationship. He does not support her in any way (other than owning the roof under which she lives, the same as any other landlord). In this case, I doubt Social Security has any idea that Jane lives with Bob. I don’t think that they care, even when she retires and starts drawing benefits from them. Even if she still is rooming with Bob at the time, none of her money goes to his support. I think Au Gratin could perhaps maybe divorce and live in some such arrangement like this, without Social Security thinking any different (as long as they don’t see any support from roomie to roomie). It could be difficult, perhaps, and I could see why SSI would investigate, but it might be possible to pull off. But I really have no idea - perhaps someone else does.
Not necessarily - several states do not require you to give any reason for seeking a divorce. Depending on where she lives, Au Gratin may not need a “legal” reason. As other posters have stated.
Now, as for advice - I only have a little. How good is your health insurance now - is it possible that going on a state-supported health plan (for example, here in MN we have MinnesotaCare, a subsidized state health care program) will help? Or does your current income level exclude you from those programs? If you don’t know, I’d research those options to see what’s available. While it’s likely that your current income will preclude you, maybe if you divorce, he’ll have options due to his new income level. Or maybe your current income won’t preclude you from getting the help you need without divorcing. What about support groups - can your health care providers recommend any support groups specific to your husband’s condition? Perhaps they will have the information you need. What about President Bush’s prescription drug benefit program? I realize that this is a flawed program (and I don’t know much about it myself, not taking any prescriptions), but does it have any advantages that can help you? Can it even apply to your husband (as I believe it might - I don’t think it’s exclusively for seniors)? Can you talk to anyone in your current health care provider’s billing department? They may be aware of avenues that you aren’t. I’d also look up your city/state/community social services to see what information they have and if anyone can help point you in the right direction. I’d also research your state’s divorce laws, and see if you can find out how much spousal support would be if you decide to divorce. With this amount, you should be able to determine divorcing would keep your husband from getting the help he needs on the basis of income.
What a tragic situation - I wish I had knowledge that would help you. Good luck to you - you’re both in my thoughts.
Snicks