Missouri: husband responsible for wife's medical bills?

[UDS]

@Sigene

So this apparently is my answer, first it was actually true. And it was changed in 1997.
Thanks for the info!

It was changed by 1997. The change could well have happened earlier.

[Lord_Mondegreen]

@kanicbird

As I understand it, after marriage, if the wife takes the husband’s name ‘John Smith’ becomes a joint name, Mr John Smith and Mrs John Smith are the individual names classically speaking, and why I asked if Mr was included in the bill.

So yes, if it was to Mr Smith that would indicate that they man is responsible for the woman, but John Smith could indicate a classical joint marriage name.

Ah yes, you’re right. I had forgotten that Mary became Mrs John Smith. Even as a kid I remember thinking how ridiculous it was that my aunt would send a letter to her sister (my mother) using the equivalent of Mrs J Smith on the envelope, rather than Mrs M Smith.

[alphaboi867]

@Lord_Mondegreen

Ah yes, you’re right. I had forgotten that Mary became Mrs John Smith. Even as a kid I remember thinking how ridiculous it was that my aunt would send a letter to her sister (my mother) using the equivalent of Mrs J Smith on the envelope, rather than Mrs M Smith.

Traditionally Mrs Mary Smith would imply she was the ex-wife of John Smith; though there were exceptions. Legal and banking documents would use her first name; as would a widow’s marriage announcements & wedding invitations. I also had a (great aunt) who would do that to my mother (& put Master on my cards; which I always though sounded more impressive than Mister). God help anyone who called her Miss or Mrs though; she was Doctor, and went through all kinds of crap back in the '30s to earn it.

[UDS]

@alphaboi867

Traditionally Mrs Mary Smith would imply she was the ex-wife of John Smith; though there were exceptions. Legal and banking documents would use her first name; as would a widow’s marriage announcements & wedding invitations.

A married woman was Mrs John Smith in some circumstances and Mary Smith in others; she was never Mrs Mary Smith.

A widow or a divorced woman (who did not revert to her maiden name) was Mrs Mary Smith or plain Mary Smith in all circumstances; never Mrs John Smith.

Mr John Smith, John Smith Esq and just plain John Smith always referred to the husband, and never to the couple.

[Pai325]

@kanicbird

As I understand it, after marriage, if the wife takes the husband’s name ‘John Smith’ becomes a joint name, Mr John Smith and Mrs John Smith are the individual names classically speaking, and why I asked if Mr was included in the bill.

So yes, if it was to Mr Smith that would indicate that they man is responsible for the woman, but John Smith could indicate a classical joint marriage name.

I have never heard that at all. John Smith is John Smith, and his wife might be Mrs. John Smith, or now just Jane Smith, but she has never been John Smith.

The situation in the 90s doesn’t surprise me at all. My husband was considered the head of the house, and all bills went to him, even my medical bills under my insurance.

It’s all different now, but wasn’t 20 - 25 years ago, which is what he OP is talking about.

[picunurse]

@Sigene

In the early 90s my wife racked up some serious medical bills. WHen the bills came, they were sent to me…not her. When I called to correct this, I was told Missouri law requires that the husband be responsible for the wife’s medical bills. Pissed us both off.
Note that this isn’t the wife is responsible for the husband’s medical bills, or that both people in the couple are jointly responsible for the medical bills of each.

It was clearly the wife’s bills are sent to the husband, because he is responsible for his her medical bills. It was simply an antiquated sexist policy that relegated the woman to a second class status of being treated like a minor child.

Can anyone tell me if this policy is still in place, or has it been changed in the last few years. I was shocked to find out it was still going on in the 90’s.

The health system I was dealing with told me clearly that it was Missouri Law.

On edit
She was on her own medical insurance too, not on mine

I haven’t lived in Missouri since the '70s, but it was definately the law then.

When my first husband and I had our marriage desolved, the judge asked me, specificly, if I had any unpaid medical or dental bills. I was puzzled as to why he would presume to ask such a question. It turned out that my ex was responsible for my dental bills, even though I made a great deal more money than he did.
Since he was lying, cheating scum. I let the court make him pay.

Just so you know, I was 27, after 9 years of marraige. I wouldn’t do that today. I still feel a bit guilty about it. I’ve made my own way in this life before and after. It was the only way to punish him for breaking my heart.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@VunderBob

My wife’s bills come to me, regardless of the state we’re living in. I hold the health insurance policy, and sign the paperwork as the responsible party.

That’s slightly different. Your insurer is the payor and you are a guarantor. Even if it’s your policy you are not personally liable for the bill unless the jurisdiction follows the doctrine of necessaries/necessities discussed above. As a guarantor, you become liable as a secondary payor - meaning they only get to come after you if the insurer and your wife don’t pay.

[robert_columbia]

@kanicbird

As I understand it, after marriage, if the wife takes the husband’s name ‘John Smith’ becomes a joint name, Mr John Smith and Mrs John Smith are the individual names classically speaking, and why I asked if Mr was included in the bill.

So yes, if it was to Mr Smith that would indicate that they man is responsible for the woman, but John Smith could indicate a classical joint marriage name.

However, iirc names have no real meaning in the Common Law other than as identifiers. If the wife of Mr. John Jones wants to be known as Mrs. John Jones, that just happens to be the name she has and medical providers are entitled to bill her under that name, etc. If she wants to be known as Alice Madison Nebuchadnezzar Geer’da’g’w-Neilson-O’Hara nee Smith, then that’s her name. Having one name or another doesn’t actually create or destroy legal rights. The same thing applies to children - if the children of John Jones want to change their last name to Williamson, they don’t stop being the legal children of John Jones by virtue of the name change.