paralyzed bride gaming the system

[kiryan]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/23/pa ... insurance/

They told ABC News that their combined income as a married couple would be too high to qualify for Medicaid payments. Friedman needs the state and federally funded health coverage to pay for her constant care and rehabilitation.

--

So is this gaming the system or just getting what they are entitled to? They're goign to live together as husband and wife undoubtedly, but not going to get married so she can get free healthcare from the state. When you give something away, someone is always going to try and min max it for their own benefit.

[Yayaril]

People get married all the time to better their financial situation, so I don't see what the problem is with people choosing not to get married for the same reason.

[kiryan]

How do you feel about two people not getting married because one is receiving alimony?

or if I divorce my wife so she'll qualify for more student loans?

or your grandparents getting divorced to protect their assets from medicare/medicaid when one gets sick?

or someone not buying health insurance through their work because they can get it cheaper from the state?

or what if I sign up for state provided healthcare, I can make up to 92k and still qualify because I have six dependents?

Do we really want to reduce marriage to just a status you take when its advantageous to your personal wealth/circumstances?

[Sarvis]

Do we really want to reduce marriage to just a status you take when its advantageous to your personal wealth/circumstances?

I thought you were all for "traditional" marriage?

Ancient Greece: Love is a many-splendored (manly) thing. Love is honored—especially between men. In marriage, inheritance is more important than feelings: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative—even if she has to divorce her husband first.


6th-century Europe: Political polygamy—The Germanic warlord Clothar, despite being a baptized Christian, eventually acquires four wives for strategic reasons, including his dead brother's wife, her sister and the daughter of a captured foreign king.


Both from here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles ... ge-history

[Ragorn]

My ex-wife's parents stayed married for 9 years after their separation so they wouldn't have to pay the personal property tax when dividing up the house and assets.

You (kiryan) have said yourself that you're all too happy to abuse the letter of the law to your own ends, because you might as well take advantage of the benefits offered by the government, even if you don't agree with them.

Marriage carries legal connotations, which I don't think it should. Marriage in the eyes of god, where one man and one woman live for eternity in holy matrimony, should carry no tax benefit and should not be recognized by the government in any way. Alternately, any two American citizens of either gender should be allowed to enter into a civil union, by which they receive benefits such as tax exemptions, power of attorney, and next of kin status. The two should be completely separate. The righties would be happy because gays wouldn't be getting married, and the lefties would be happy because Adam wouldn't be denied access to Steve's estate after his death just because he's the wrong gender to sign the legal paperwork.

You want to get married? Go for it. Want to also enter into a legally recognized civil union? Great! Want to do one but not the other? Also cool! Get married but stay individual on your tax forms, or sign a contract but don't tie the knot in a church. Go be free to pursue your happiness however you want :)

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Ragorn: I agree 100%, I think I said the same thing on that marriage thread awhile back.

Sarvis: #1: Traditional doesn't mean going back to Neanderthal times. But I think you already knew that before posting that nonsense. #2 Still citing Psychology Today...

[kiryan]

I would vote for a separation of marriage and civil unions. I would not accept transferrance of all the benefits of marriage to civil unions, all the benefits should be reviewed for appropriateness. For example, the marriage tax break (or penalty at times) was constituted on the idea that 1 person was supporting the other... I'm not sure it makes sense to give a marriage tax break to two people that both work.

gaming is gaming, something most of you suggest you are against which is why I posted this. You should be against this based on your previous positions. They're taking advantage of the system, they're gaming it for benefit (albeit less a matter of greed and more a matter of how do we survive). Do you support them gaming the system this way? I'd love to know how much they make individually and why they felt that they didn't have enough money to buy health insurance. My sister in law's sister just got a $8,000 boob job and now has come down with bone cancer and is turning to charity and the government. She's uninsured of course because they couldn't afford it. RIIIIGHT.

Gaming immigration with fake marriages is illegal and considered fraud. Marriages can be considered fraudulent in court when they are determined to have been arranged for reasons other than a traditional view on marriage (such as financial gain and transferring/protecting assets).

I will use every rule and law to my personal advantage and gain.

[Sarvis]

Ragorn: I agree 100%, I think I said the same thing on that marriage thread awhile back.

Sarvis: #1: Traditional doesn't mean going back to Neanderthal times. But I think you already knew that before posting that nonsense. #2 Still citing Psychology Today...

Except for the last 60 years, Marriage has been largely about personal wealth and power. If you're going to ask the question "should marriage be about personal wealth or power" the answer is it ALWAYS has been.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Sarvis, just offhand I can think of several literary pieces written in the 1700's that show people falling in love and getting married just out of love. Hell, you even see it in Don Quijote, 100 years before even that. The 'wealth and power' bit might have applied to many "noble" families and the upper classes, or some middle class families seeking to protect their businesses, but that doesn't apply to everyone ever. Literature and personal letters show us that. The Romantic movement exemplified it.

[Ragorn]

I would vote for a separation of marriage and civil unions. I would not accept transferrance of all the benefits of marriage to civil unions, all the benefits should be reviewed for appropriateness. For example, the marriage tax break (or penalty at times) was constituted on the idea that 1 person was supporting the other... I'm not sure it makes sense to give a marriage tax break to two people that both work.

So the tax break is reserved for households in civil union where only one member works. Still has nothing to do with [religious] marriage. If you want marriage to be founded on religion, then Congress Shall Pass No Law conferring any benefits to people who choose to get married.

Marriages can be considered fraudulent in court when they are determined to have been arranged for reasons other than a traditional view on marriage (such as financial gain and transferring/protecting assets).

[citation needed]

[Yayaril]

How do you feel about two people not getting married because one is receiving alimony?

or if I divorce my wife so she'll qualify for more student loans?

or your grandparents getting divorced to protect their assets from medicare/medicaid when one gets sick?

or someone not buying health insurance through their work because they can get it cheaper from the state?

or what if I sign up for state provided healthcare, I can make up to 92k and still qualify because I have six dependents?

Do we really want to reduce marriage to just a status you take when its advantageous to your personal wealth/circumstances?

I have no problem with any of these things.

[kiryan]

so you're for gaming the system? For a complicated maze of conditions and claims arbitrarily entered into or applied depending on the specific situation? What a bunch of crap. if you want to be married you should be married. If you are in a civil union you should be in one for reasons that don't change day by day, application by application. If that is going to be the system, do away with all these sham statuses.

What if race was maintained by the same standard? You can't really tell me what race I am legally? It is perfectly valid for me to mark down African American; I've done it. So \hHow about if I'm black today because I'm applying for a job, hispanic tomorrow because I'm applying to college and white on the weekends when I'm hanging out with my friends?

--

Ragorn, I'm not suggesting the current marraige benefits stay with the religious status of marriage. They should be completely divorced from the tax code, insurance everything. Civil Unions should be the structure that grants these benefits, but before we simply transfer all the benefits to civil unions, we should examine them and eliminate the ones that don't make sense. Like I stated, the tax advantage for being married was intended to relive the burden of supporting a person who was not working. Instead of continuing to grant that benefit to working couples, it should be eliminated and handled through the tax code as a deduction for a dependent.

[Sarvis]

if you want to be married you should be married.

If they wanted to get married they would. They obviously don't want to.

[kiryan]

bullshit, they obviously want to get married.

It specifically states that they are not getting married because it would cut off the free healthcare.

[Kindi]

if i want ice cream, but someone licked it, i still want ice cream, but i'm not going to take it

govt needs to take its tongue off my ice cream

[Sarvis]

bullshit, they obviously want to get married.

It specifically states that they are not getting married because it would cut off the free healthcare.

Right. So they don't want to.

[Teflor Lyorian]

What we have here is obviously the case where government welfare has interfered with the behavior of individual citizens.

This type of interference has prevented a couple from being married by the state for fear of a loss of privileges granted by the state as stolen from wealthier households.

I do not blame the individuals - they are not gaming the system. The truth is that the system, our government, and its broad interference in the personal affairs of the people are the ones gaming the couple.