I completely understand this, but I would still consider it a misuse of the system. I could not marry someone I didn’t love romantically so they could use my benefits. In my mind, that’s not what marriage is for, and any benefits my “spouse” is legally entitled to under such an arrangement would be unethically obtained.
Interesting how the situation is so black and white for some people on both sides. I personally would not consider presenting a married couple as a married couple, regardless of the motivations for the marriage, as unethical. What I would consider unethical would be to forego excellent sex for the rest of my life. :eek: Aah! Way back when we were dating it was excellent, but now that I don’t have that attraction to him it wouldn’t be. And that excellent sex, where each person is very much attracted to and “in to” the other, is way too important to not ever have again. Now I have it sporadically (not with him) and to me even that’s better than never having it again. And I do cling to the hope that one day it will be every day. And twice on Sundays. Again, not with him.
Well, for some of us, marriage does not preclude ethical excellent sex with others. I understand that it might not work for you, but… y’know…just sayin’… 
You don’t think I’ve already asked him about that? He won’t go for it.
To me, that’s nuts. I wouldn’t be interested in an open marriage, but if someone is marrying me to save my life or keep me off the streets or whathaveyou, I wouldn’t have any claim on their fidelity or affection.
Since there is no law saying you have to be in love with the person you marry, I see no problem with this. There are no rules governing the reasons that people marry. LOTS of people marry for convenience. Or money. Or insurance. It’s done all the time. I mean, seriously…how would an insurance company quantify love? It’s impossible.
Is he in love with you?
Surprising how hard it is to answer this question. If he is still in love with me (he used to be), he has definitely accepted that I’m not in love with him and that we’ll always be just friends.
I haven’t brought up the open marriage thing in the context of the insurance situation.
Forget about defrauding the institute of marriage, or defrauding insurance companies.
The people who are “hurt” by such an arrangement are the people in Alice’s “risk pool”.
She is asking her fellow employees to foot the bill for her friend’s cancer treatment. He did not pay into the pool the years during which he was healthy. Of course he wants to join an insurance pool right before he has expensive treatment, while he has been able to pay for the cheap stuff the rest of his life.
We’d ALL like to do that. “No, I don’t need health care right now, but can I sign up if I get gravely injured?”
I can’t speak for all insurance companies, but at our company we’ve been told before “our rates are going up because we’re using an inordinate amount of health care.”
I think we should all be in Alice’s friend’s “risk pool” and he shouldn’t have to consider getting married in order to be able to have his life not destroyed by medical bills.
Also, if he has treatment while uninsured and goes bankrupt (a not-unlikely scenario), we’ll all be paying for it anyway.
Besides, the same is true any time anyone marries. When I got married, my husband went from uninsured to insured.
And finally, of course the insurance company told you that. They would absolutely love it if no one ever claimed anything.
I hope you cut loose a horselaugh and asked the boss to describe which treatments were “inordinate.” Or maybe you explained to your boss that he just created a negative incentive: everyone’s rates are going up because the insured had the gall to actually use their insurance. If you haven’t been using your insurance, then you’re the sucker paying for everyone else. Time for you to get your fair share.
It’s just like Catch-22, if my rates are going up anyway I’d be a damn fool not to use the insurance.
Not exactly.
More like I looked at the two overweight guys in the office next door, and the two fat guys in the office next to them, and the two fat guys who smoke in the office next to them, and the two fat guys next to them. And figured, I’m lukcy I’m only paying what I am.
I’m not exactly sure what your tone is (sarcastic and with me, or seriously wondering why I’m not getting mine), but what you’re describing is a huge part of the problem, IMO.
It’s a “split the check” thing. . .the phenomenon where people ordering together will order more if they know they’re just going to split the check.
I think that people trying to get “their fair share” is one of the reasons for health care bloat.
I’m one of the the only guys here doing my part to keep costs down, and that’s why I get a little galled at the behavior the people in this thread are espousing.
Am I being whooooshed?
You don’t really think like this do you?
OMG, OMG, OMFG! You have got to be kidding? He asks for marriage to get insurance and expects fidelity?! That’s flat out insane.
You are better off paying for his individual insurance than getting involved in any other way. The two of you still have something for each other and are trying to use the insurance thing as a catalyzer.
Talk it out.
How is this situation different from marrying someone that you love romantically vs. platonically, which is her situation? Is there a rule about how long they need to date? Can you show me how this would differ from say, someone whose sister was killed and immediately had to care for her children? The rules are, spouses are covered. Period. Why are you adding on caveats that don’t exist?
Marriage, except the churchy kind, is simply a legal agreement. There is no prerequisite of love (or even a dating period). There are no requirements except the silly gender stuff and age. If you’re not pulling the wool over anyone’s eyes, there is no ethical fraud. There are plenty of people who are married and hate each other’s guts. No insurance company is going to deprive one or the other of benefits based on love. Insurance allows you to care for people who you are legally responsible for.
Did you quote the right post?
What “caveats” was I adding that don’t exist.
The original question was about marrying the guy so he could get her insurance benefits.
I’m merely pointing out (to the people who aren’t really concerned about defrauding the institution of marriage, or the insurance company) that there is someone else paying the price for this action – her fellow employees.
I’m just saying the issue isn’t the marriage or fraud or anything. The issue is that we have a man who has avoided paying for health insurance his whole life, and now that he needs it, he wants in on someone else’s pool.
If he didn’t want insurance for his first 50 years, he should have been putting away the money he was saving in case of catastrophe. That’s a person’s reasonable option against insurance. Not to avoid paying for 50 years, and then jump in when the going gets rough.
[QUOTE=Trunk]
Did you quote the right post?
What “caveats” was I adding that don’t exist.
The original question was about marrying the guy so he could get her insurance benefits.
I’m merely pointing out (to the people who aren’t really concerned about defrauding the institution of marriage, or the insurance company) that there is someone else paying the price for this action – her fellow employees. [/qyote] How can she possibly be defrauding her co-workers? What agreement does she have with them? NONE! She cannot defraud the institution of marriage as long as the marriage is entered into legally. Likewise with the insurance company. There is no prerequisite of love. You’re making up things as if they were relevant to marriage, employment or insurability. They’re not.
I work and could have insurance through my company but I choose not to. I choose to go with my husband’s company. Is there something wrong with that? After all, I didn’t pay into his system and once I was covered, I used the benefits.
This makes no sense at all. You keep inventing qualifiers that don’t exist in the real world.
He’s uninsured now. Where do you see that he has chosen to be without health insurance for 50 years?
There are two assumptions you seem to be making:
- That it’s been a choice, and
- That he’s never been insured.
Perhaps it’s in this thread and I’ve missed it?