Getting Hitched for Health Insurance

The Los Angeles Times this morning, reporting on a new Kaiser Family Foundation poll:

WASHINGTON -- Some people marry for love, some for companionship, and others for status or money. Now comes another reason to get hitched: health insurance.

In a poll released today, 7% of Americans said they or someone in their household decided to marry in the last year so they could get healthcare benefits via their spouse.

Can't wait to hear the right-wing wurlitzer crank up to demand universal health insurance to preserve the sanctity of wedlock. Surely all those desperately non-insured brides and grooms hooking up are threatening the marriages of all the rest of us. Right?

•  Hey baby

  wanna see my deductable?

  by citizenx on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:25:43 PM PDT

  •  Sorry...

    it's way too big.

    by Red Bean on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:26:58 PM PDT

    •  I'd like to write her co-payment...

      ...and get her into my provider network. Ow!

      by AmericanFactotum on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:31:14 PM PDT

      •  Jay Leno

        said one of the reasons he married his wife is because of her lack of health insurance.  I believe he said it worriedd him that after a health scare she had no coverage.

        Sorry I can't cite a source.  But I remember this very very clearly.  It rather scared me that a millionaire would be worried about the cost of his girlfriends healthcare!

        by Lava20 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:41:16 PM PDT

        •  he got married in 1980

          He was not a rich man at that time; according to his bio on IMDB, in those days he was working 300 nights a year as a stand-up comic.

          by Joe Buck on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:53:04 PM PDT

          •  It has been

            at while since I heard this.  It wasn't in 1980, I didn't exist then.

            It was a radio interview, I believe.

            No wonder he got married then.

            by Lava20 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:56:12 PM PDT

        •  The new pickup line?

          Hey baby want to come up to my place and read the fine print? I've got the lowest deductible  in the building and the sexiest co-pay you've ever seen.  

          by AuntieM on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:03:05 PM PDT

          •  No waiting period!!!

            I'm all hot and bothered!

            This could be made into a rather interesting porno.

            by Lava20 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:19:01 PM PDT

          •  You don't need to worry...

            ...about your pre-existing conditions with me, baby.

            by varro on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:13:23 PM PDT

    •  And they say that size doesn't matter! n/t

      by rontun on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:32:53 PM PDT

  •  You actually have to have a co-pay for that?

    ROFL!

    by darthstar on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:28:34 PM PDT

    •  Hey

      is that a point of service 80/20 policy or are you just glad to see me?

      by DarkSyde on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:09:41 PM PDT

  •  That's hot.

    by vacuumslayer on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:29:48 PM PDT

    •  What's your group number, baby?

      by AmericanFactotum on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:31:37 PM PDT

      •  *laughs* :D

        by vacuumslayer on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:33:39 PM PDT

      •  Kaiser...

        that's hot...

        PPO or HMO?  Cause PPO's really turn me on!

        All that out of network swinging!!!

        by Lava20 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:42:38 PM PDT

        •  If I had the slightest idea what

          PPO's were, I'm sure I'd be really aroused right now.

          by vacuumslayer on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:47:46 PM PDT

          •  Compared to single payer...

            PPO's suck!

            by Lava20 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:02:06 PM PDT

            •  not as bad as HMO's n/t

              by needtovent on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:07:47 PM PDT

            •  Single payer would cut in on your action

              No more seduction with low deductibles or co-pays.

              by democracy diva on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:44:54 AM PDT

  •  Just wait until you see the size of my PPO. nt

    by kath25 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:40:56 PM PDT

  •  LOL!

    best laugh i've had in 2 weeks...

    by needtovent on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:04:36 PM PDT

  •  I only love you...

    ...for your co-pay.

    by DawnG on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:07:02 PM PDT

•  Isn't that great!

  Promoting family values by neglecting our people.  Good old Republican values!

  by Sedi on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:25:56 PM PDT

  •  just as so many senior citizens choose to

    live together because marriage would reduce their social security checks and mostly likely supplemental health insurance.

    My cousin who lost her health insurance when she turned 55 have often talked about health insurance is a good reason to marry or to stay married.  

    by paige on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:37:08 PM PDT

    •  Disability and the Unmarried

      My partner and I are both disabled, me with MS and him with the after effects of a crippling case of Guillain-Barré syndrome.  (Unlike the vast majority of people who are stricken by GBS, he did not make anything like a full recovery.)

      If we were to marry, one or the other of us would lose our Social Security disability payments.  As it is, our disability checks and  the the very small allowable amount of part-time work each of us manages does little more than help us squeak by till the end of the month.

      Retirement funds?  Would have been nice if I hadn't had had to pay hospital and medical bills with that money, not to mention paying off the credit cards I was obliged to live on when my retirement money was gone. His?  Well until very recently he has been supporting his kids.  He is fortunate that his children care about him deeply and are always willing to help when they can.

      But marriage?  Well, we're cool without it and that's a good thing.  Because if we weren't we'd   have to slip into grinding poverty in order to marry while one of us would have to give up the SSDI payments for which he or she has been faithfully paying into the system since high school.

      Thank you Jesus for Republican family values! \Snark

      by American Daughter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:22:50 PM PDT

      •  Love and Intelligence Are Not Mutualy Exclusive..

        Stay strong, live long!

        Good Luck!!!

        by Nick Lento on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:51:15 PM PDT

•  They were probably having premarital sex

  anyway, so the Republicans will be happy to hear they actually got married.

  by bbrown8370 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:26:50 PM PDT

  •  Another reason to opponse universal health care

    But, but, but, if we give everybody health care then people won't have a reason to get married, and they'll live in sin!

    Universal health care is a liberal plot to destroy the institution of marriage.

    by Dallasdoc on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:32:17 PM PDT

    •  I Had Not Thought of That!

      That's truly a brilliant insight.

      by CityLightsLover on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:34:24 PM PDT

    •  Or in the case of Republicans they'll

      continue to engage in extramarital sex. But only because the devil makes them do it.

      by rontun on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:35:27 PM PDT

      •  And then the Repubs will find JESUS, and then all

        will be forgiven.

        by boofdah on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:46:41 PM PDT

        •  Except their co-pay.

          I wonder what Vitter's wife has extracted from him in future payments?

          by rontun on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:55:13 PM PDT

      •  That's not extramarital sex...

        ...it's just a wide stance.

        by brightstar on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:53:22 PM PDT

    •  Marriage for economic security

      is the core of the institution, and has been for millenia.  All this hearts and flowers stuff is the frosting, not the cake.

      by lgmcp on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:48:52 PM PDT

•  Even worse...

  I've heard that some people look to marry doctors.

  by Trix on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:27:13 PM PDT

•  I nearly did this

  I don't have insurance but my fiancee does. On a few occasions over the last year I thought about taking a trip with her over to the courthouse in Salinas and getting hitched just so I could get on her insurance. We decided to wait until the July wedding, and it was a gamble that worked out pretty well (if you don't count the bronchitis a few weeks ago).

  Health insurance is a moronic concept and the fact that health care is not guaranteed to every American as a right of being alive is an abomination.

  by eugene on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:27:37 PM PDT

  •  I was that close,

    and turned down the idea for reasons of personal ethics. Overly fastidious reasons, which I now greatly regret.

    Go for it. It's just a fucking game anyway.

    by melvin on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:31:44 PM PDT

    •  That's why we did it.

      We had been a couple for eight years, and had no need or desire to get married. But, when I left my job and started my own practice, it was so expensive to buy insurance that we got married. And that was almost 17 years ago.

      by not a cent on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:35:50 PM PDT

      •  us too

        love my spouse, but we'd been living together before and decided to get married when we did because we were planning to move for his work and my student insurance wasn't going to be any good when we left our area (I was working on a dissertation at the time, so was able to move away from school without stopping progress on my degree).  I'm asthmatic, so to the altar we went . . . six years ago (now we both have our own insurance, but the marriage seems to have stuck).

        by history geek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:14:01 PM PDT

    •  At this late stage

      With just under 3 months left to go, I'm going to chance it and wait. Although whenever I look at my grandparents' wedding photo, taken on the steps of Glendale City Hall in 1949, I think "they really did have the right idea."

      by eugene on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:21:40 PM PDT

  •  I have a friend

    (helping me on the health insurance issue here) who was on the way out the door with her fiance to go to the justice of the peace to get hitched for health insurance and they balked.

    by kath25 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:42:04 PM PDT

  •  I just did this

    My fiancee and I got engaged in July and then married in August...even though our wedding is this weekend.  She needed the insurance and couldn't wait for the wedding.

    I didn't really care, but yeah...it's pretty stupid.

    by jforman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:23:07 PM PDT

    •  Almost did the same thing -

      and I still might.  And congrats!

      by Eirene on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:35:17 PM PDT

  •  We got married two months earlier than planned...

    ...due to the fact that my insurance from grad school was about to run out and I was still looking for a job.  We had a quick civil ceremony and then had our church wedding as planned two months later.

    I personally have known two people who decided to delay marrying so they wouldn't lose their federal financial aid, but then had a serious illness that wiped them out financially and forced them into bankruptcy.  They each had to drop out of school and go to work full-time.    

    by SpinsterLibrarian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:28:09 PM PDT

  •  We did it too

    after over 25 years of living in sin (really great sin, too...) when her employer sold out and moved. Put a couple hundred people out of work.

    Made our parents happy, anyway.

    "Abomination" is correct. And the Right of health care should be totally decoupled from employment.

    by OkieByAccident on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:46:30 PM PDT

  •  that's everyone's argument to us

    My fiance and I have been together for almost 7 years. At this point for, us, a wedding would be merely a formality. And I've been putting it off cause I don't want to deal with the hassle of the planning. But, I don't have health insurance. I can't afford to purchase insurance. And in all likelihood I wouldn't be able to get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions and family history. so all of our family and friends keep pushing us to get married to I can get covered under his plan. "You need to get married so you'll have insurance". I'm having a real internal conflict about it. Marriage and the label of "wife" is just not that important to me. Having the title and the formalization isn't going to change our relationship. I think I would feel kinda skeezy walking down the aisle.....as if I'm marrying him not because I love him but just to get coverage. And I worry (after everyone else making it about the need me to get insurance and my ambivalence on the subject of getting married) that he might wonder if I married him for love or for his coverage.

    by schnecke21 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:56:16 PM PDT

    •  I know just how you feel

      My fiancee (and it took us months to start using that label; we only did so after everyone else did, and I doubt I'll ever call her my "wife") and I have been together since 2002. Our wedding isn't going to be a formality so much as a celebration - we refer to it as "our party."

      If it helps, a civil ceremony at the courthouse would likely ease most of those concerns. It is more of a legal transaction than some socio-religious rite full of meaning you might not want to adopt. And having insurance is pretty useful.

      by eugene on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:47:33 PM PDT

    •  Just go to the courthouse,

      fill out some forms, say a few words, voila.

      by elfling on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:50:24 PM PDT

•  I was thinking of advertising

  for a husband with good health insurance last year, only it seemed risky. They could dig it out and use it to cancel my policy later. But I'm sure it's being done and will continue to be.

  by denise b on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:28:04 PM PDT

•  Or...

  ...they'll demand a medical exam and history review before a marriage license can be issued. Anyone with a pre-existing condition can't get married. We have to think about the burden on the health insurance industry. They're much more important that the sanctity of marriage.

  * sigh *

  by Spathiphyllum on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:28:20 PM PDT

  •  My thoughts on the health insurance industry?

    

    by rontun on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:38:21 PM PDT

•  Marry for money?

  or cash equivalents? I can just hear the outrage from the McCain camp. Damn fortune hunters!

  by irate on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:28:42 PM PDT

  •  McCain's a fortune hunter...went younger and

    richer a few years back himself, the randy ole goat.

    by darthstar on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:29:46 PM PDT

    •  And Has All the Free Beer He Wants

      by CityLightsLover on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:35:48 PM PDT

      •  And a plane to fly around in with is trollop.

        Actually, it's kind of interesting that he likens her to a trollop when really, he's nothing but a gigolo.

        by rontun on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:42:02 PM PDT

        •  "He's Just a Gigolo, and Everywhere He Goes,

          people know that part he's playin'..." Gotta go dip my dinner.

          by CityLightsLover on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:54:44 PM PDT

      •  Annheusher-Busch.,,

        products are like screwing in a canoe. Fucking close to water.

        by irate on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:49:52 PM PDT

  •  McCain has his own insurance

    he just needed a private jet to get to his doctor's appointment.

    by citizenx on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:34:02 PM PDT

•  Actually this is more proof we're winning in Iraq

  It's all part of Bush's top secret plan. Sorry, can't tell you any more about it because the terrorists would be embossed or whatever.

  It does involve this great bridge in Brooklyn. You could totally put a booth on it and start charging people all the extra money they'll be saving from teh gas tax.

  by jbeach on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:29:19 PM PDT

  •  OT: Did you hear bush this morning say

    we're transisting?
    Of course, the White House corrected him in the transcript original textWH version

    We're transisting transitioning to a new era, by the way -- a new era where we're going to have batteries in our cars that will power -- enable people to drive 40 miles on electricity. There's going to be more ethanol on the market, more alternative fuels.

    by darthstar on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:32:52 PM PDT

    •  I'm picking up

      an AM station in Chicago!!

      by arielle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:35:59 PM PDT

•  Hell, I did that 10 years ago.

  Health insurance, taxes, rights including visiting an ill spouse in the hospital, etc. all factored into our reasons for marriage.

  We would have been perfectly happy living in "sin" otherwise.

  by arielle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:30:29 PM PDT

  •  Beat you by seven! n/t

    by not a cent on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:37:29 PM PDT

    •  I had previously divorced a policy.

      ;o)

      by arielle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:41:46 PM PDT

  •  All those things us gay folks would like to get

    and can't, no matter how "married" we are in assorted foreign countries and a few states.

    I can get health insurance for my lesbian spouse at only about three employers in our mid-size city.  Good thing I prefer to work in the public sector anyhow, because in local private industry it wouldn't be happening, period.

    by lgmcp on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:43:22 PM PDT

    •  My husband's private sector

      company insures gay partners.  In the South, no less!

      by arielle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:45:31 PM PDT

    •  Yep.

      And I will admit that I felt like a hypocrite for taking advantage of discriminatory laws by getting married when you and a significant portion of the population doesn't have that same right.

      Ironically, right after we got married my spouse's employer started covering SO's regardless of gender. And here (Northern CA), at least, covering SO's has become the norm more than the exception. But clearly that is not enough, it is just putting a band-aide on the larger problem of sexual orientation discrimination.

      by not a cent on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:53:31 PM PDT

      •  To show another side of this,

        while my husband's company covered gay partners, it did not cover unmarried hetero partners.

        Hence, we tied the knot during a lunch break with a Baptist preacher in a gazebo at the Opryland Wedding Chapel.

        And we'll never forget it.  :o)

        by arielle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:13:36 PM PDT

        •  Hard to imagine you could,

          even if you wanted to!  That is so funny.

          by not a cent on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:18:45 PM PDT

      •  My son is lucky

        in that his SO has very good health insurance, and she was able to get him covered on it (after a bit of a fuss- her company was offering health insurance to unmarried gay couples [a relatively enlightened company], but not unmarried straight couples, and she went right up the line to demand the same benefits as gay couples- amazingly, it worked).  My son did have major medical coverage, plus a health savings account that he contributed to, at his place of employment, but not the kind of health insurance that his SO has.  I'm happy for them, but this type of fuss should not be necessary.  It should be a fundamental human right to have adequate, affordable health coverage for all, regardless of marital status.  It is way, way past time for single-payer, universal health coverage for all Americans.  Most (if not all) First World nations have it- why are we so far behind?

        by Zorba the Greek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:29:16 PM PDT

        •  "Why are we so far behind?"

          Was that rhetorical? ;o)

          by arielle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:28:29 PM PDT

        •  Health Ins. also keeps people in dull jobs.

          People are afraid to move around, change jobs because they fear loss of coverage so they and the job gets dull. Single payer could invigorate the economy in so many ways.

          by democracy diva on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:07:21 PM PDT

  •  Then Divorce To Avoid Foreclosure

    When the two of us lose our coverage we can both have the divorce agreements drawn up and ready to be signed and notarized before either of us visits the doctor.

    Or at least burn the f#^king house to the ground and stand out front holding the gas can to pick up care in the prison system on the taxpayer dime.

    by JohnnySacks on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:13:16 PM PDT

•  My best friend's sister...

  ...had to move back to California after moving to Chicago -- 3 months after moving here -- because her breast cancer came back. In order to receive treatment through her HMO, she had to return to California...and move all of her things back again.

  See, our healthcare system is great for the housing market, too!

  by ilona on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:30:46 PM PDT

•  Wouldn't That be a Hoot?

  Maybe even a hoot and a half? Will there be some way to "prove" the legitimacy of the marriage a la someone marrying to gain citizenship?

  by CityLightsLover on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:32:48 PM PDT

  •  Oh shit! Now the health insurance industry will

    be raising its premiums again to cover the cost of investigating potentially unconsummated marriages.

    by rontun on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:44:50 PM PDT

    •  Don't Say That Too Loudly!

      ANYTHING to make a buck, ya' know.

      by CityLightsLover on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:48:22 PM PDT

•  I did this

  Not to any stranger, to my live-in girlfriend of 20 years.  We used to tell people "We have a perfectly good relationship, why should we let the government fuck it up?"  Now we have the answer ding

  by localroger on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:33:55 PM PDT

  •  I often think

    if people made more grounded, business-like decisions like this regarding marriage instead of assigning some spiritual reverence to it, a lot more people would have better marriages.

    by arielle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:38:13 PM PDT

    •  But what about the sex?

      God, how moribund is romance.

      by rontun on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:46:28 PM PDT

      •  But you don't need marriage

        for romance.  Or sex.  Or deep abiding love.

        It's a construct of a society afraid of everything.

        by arielle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:49:54 PM PDT

        •  No,

          But you do need marriage if you want to visit your loved one in the hospital, as just one example of what it's good for.

          I say this as someone who'd decided after my second marriage ended that I had no particular interest in the legal institution again, whatever sort of relationship I ended up in. When I found my beloved almost 11 years ago, though, we decided the legal rights (including insurance) were worth it. In hindsight, I'm very glad we did.

          by Morgan X on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:04:05 PM PDT

          •  That's kind of my point, though.

            Contractual obligations and rights have been attached to something out of some sort of weird ass belief that marriage is sanctioned by a higher power and that governments have some sort of duty to uphold that.

            by arielle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:09:43 PM PDT

            •  Agreed

              The legal contract and the religious (if any) component should be seperable, though many people do want both. We would have done the personal/spiritual commitment one way or the other. As it was, though, we delayed it a couple of months so I could file one more year of taxes as "head of household," since legal marriage was actually worse from a tax PoV.

              by Morgan X on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:14:18 PM PDT

              •  I really think

                that there should only be "civil unions" sanctioned by the state (and I don't care if the union is of a man and woman, two men, or two women).  This should take care of all the legal ramifications such as inheritance, medical decisions and visitations, tax laws, care of any children, etc, etc, etc.  The state needs to butt out of "marriage."  That is a religious construct.  If two people have been joined in a legal civil union by the government and they want to go to their church, mosque, temple, synagogue, or whatever, to have a religious sanction, fine by me, but that should have nothing to do with the government.

                by Zorba the Greek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:39:53 PM PDT

      •   But what about the sex? you ask..

        Well, I understand Viagra is covered by many health polices.

        by AuntieM on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:15:51 PM PDT

  •  My CA domestic partnership - big factor

    My partner and I have been together for almost 5 years, and we bought a house together last fall (both names on the title).  Being a pessimist, I always picture the worst-case scenario, which is that a catastrophic event (accident, cancer, etc) could happen and my (uninsured) partner's medical bills rack up and they take the house from both of us.

    I just mailed the DP form to Sacramento today, in fact (I'm still a little euphoric). Health insurance and protecting each other legally became our primary motivators for getting hitched.  Funny that we still needed to fight for his political asylum status so he could live here with me because the feds won't recognize our DP status... whereas my straight colleague married his mail-order bride without any problems.

    For us it was time to make it official and get "married" anyway ... but a system that makes some people choose between deceit and healthcare is broken and harms both the "sacred" institution of marriage and arguments for gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships.

    Here's an example of the latter from Wikipedia:

    Dissidents to the same-sex marriage movement within the gay community argue that the pursuit of social recognition and legal benefits (e.g., health care insurance) by means of marriage reinforces marriage as an institution of exclusion, because it extends rights and benefits to people on the basis of their relationship status.[54] Some of these rights (e.g., health care insurance), they argue, should be made available to all people, including those who are single and those whose families are composed of three or more intimate partners. Some also argue that seeking marriage as a way of legitimating gay parenting reinforces cultural biases and discrimination against single parents. Lastly, some note that the same-sex marriage movement reinforces a cultural bias against being single in adulthood, treating it as abnormal, undesirable, or immature.

    These folks are making the same point as the diarist, though I don't agree with their conclusion that we should not be fighting for gay marriage.  

    On the wingnut side, one argument that is made against gay marriage is that employers will be forced to provide healthcare and it's too expensive them already.

    by ScottinSF on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:15:11 PM PDT

    •  I forgot to mention -

      I'm in California but my employer is based in Maryland and has no obligation to provide me insurance due to my DP filing.  However, they do happen to provide benefits for domestic partners, as defined by the company.  So my California DP certificate is irrelevant for them - I still need to provide other "proofs" of domestic partnership, such as proof we lived togther over a year, have our names jointly on a lease or title. etc. etc.  

      Healthcare coverage is what motivated us to have the discussion that led to making our relationship official anyway.

      by ScottinSF on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:29:46 PM PDT

•  none for me.

  being gay: a pre-existing condition

  great catch, susang!

  by homo neurotic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:34:14 PM PDT

  •  Skip downthread to my comment

    on a marriage I'm aware of...

    by ogre on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:41:33 PM PDT

    •  do i have to skip?

      kind of a flamboyant means of perambulation.

      thanks for the tip--catch you on the flipside of that one...

      by homo neurotic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:43:34 PM PDT

      •  Well, if you're into film...

        "Walk this way..."

        by ogre on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:04:02 PM PDT

•  I'd marry my cousin for health insurance ... oh,

  wait, maybe I did that already.

  by Cartoon Peril on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:34:33 PM PDT

•  I think the wurlitzer would play a different tune

  Can't wait to hear the right-wing wurlitzer crank up to demand universal health insurance to preserve the sanctity of wedlock. Surely all those desperately non-insured brides and grooms hooking up are threatening the marriages of all the rest of us. Right?

  I think the far right might make inclusions of spouses in health insurance plans illegal to prevent gay people from hypothetically getting married for health care. "There's always the emergency room, the President said so!" Always with the crazy and the hate and the screwing over of the little guys/gals.

  by LeftHandedMan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:35:36 PM PDT

  •  But then they'd have to take into account

    all their little subservient stay at home wives -- those women would have to go out and get a job and put the kids into evil childcare!

    by Cali Scribe on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:37:47 PM PDT

•  Actually, my wife married me for this reason

  We realized she couldn't get healthcare any other way. We were absolutely nowhere close to be able to afford health coverage of any kind, but didn't qualify for any government program. So...yeah. We're  married and now she can go to a doctor.

  I wish we'd been able to do it on our own terms and in our own time. We'd still have married, of course. But on our own terms, on our own time. Not BlueCross BlueShield's.

  by Industrial democracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:36:09 PM PDT

  •  Talk about your shotgun wedding!

    But then, I guess it might have the impact of reducing divorces.  All sorts of perverted possibilities.

    by rontun on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:49:29 PM PDT

    •  No, it's a shot marriage.

      Or injection, if you prefer.

      by pucklady on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:34:34 PM PDT

•  so, I guess that my single's add will

  now read something like:  SWGFWHI (single white gay female with health insurance) looking for.....

  by left my heart on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:37:11 PM PDT

•  You have it backward

  If there was universal health insurance, there'd be nothing stopping these people from living in sin.

  by jbelac on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:38:30 PM PDT

•  Through my firm

  insurance for significant others is available.  I'm not sure what test has to be met but I'm betting a certain time period of cohabitation would be one criteria.

  by angel d on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:38:36 PM PDT

•  Heck, that's not new.

  I met a couple folks (separately) who married later and health care was the trigger event.  Very, very, very good friends, but health care was why he proposed.

  Here's one to freak the Wurlitzer crew:

  He's gay, and she's straight.

  Last I knew (some years later) they were still happily married.  They planned on growing old together and leering at the young (male) nurses together....

  by ogre on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:39:14 PM PDT

  •  wow.

    are they really happily married though?

    conveniently, legally, able to derive benefits, yeah, i get it. and, really, part of me says good on them for gaming a fundamentally unfair and f*cked up system.

    still, it sounds like a legally valid (and probably completely amicable) but non-romantic arrangement  between two people who each would choose, all things equal, not the other to spend rest-of-life with.

    and that's a damn shame.

    by homo neurotic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:51:00 PM PDT

    •  Really.

      Happy.

      He once told me that after they'd decided to get married, he realized that they'd cared that much about each other for over a decade... and that he'd wasted an awful lot of time looking to find someone with the right genitalia.

      Which, I think, really makes the point.  

      Love isn't about sex, or gender.

      They seemed to believe that they'd made the right choice, in the end--though it was triggered by the wrong reason (which really pissed him off, though he was simultaneously glad...).

      by ogre on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:06:59 PM PDT

      •  There are plenty of straight-straight couples

        that are compatible everywhere in their marriage -- except the bedroom; rather than go through the hassle of divorce and all that stuff, they come up with Don't Ask Don't Tell or open marriages, where the partners are free to have sex outside the marriage but still remain married. Some will come up with additional caveats, such as "no one I know" or maybe set an age range (so that neither party gets smitten with a Cute Young Thing), but that's up to the couple to determine the ground rules. Don't know if your friends have a similar arrangement, but more power to them. :)

        by Cali Scribe on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:35:13 PM PDT

      •  Recycled Melrose Place plot

        The gay guy on Melrose Place married a Russian doctor so she could stay in the U.S. Yeah, I wasted a lot of time on TV in the 90's.

        by dwcal on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:37:07 PM PDT

        •  Recycled?

          No.  Not except in the sense that nothing under the sun is truly new.

          But this isn't a plot; they're real folk.  

          by ogre on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:51:59 PM PDT

•  Hmm my girfriend has been extra nice lately

  , I wonder what her angle is...Coverage Digger!!!!

  by KLRinLA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:39:55 PM PDT

•  Yup.

  This has become a big issue amongst some of my fellow graduate students here, especially two-student relationships in which they consider marrying when one loses insurance for various reasons.

  And they say romance is dead.

  by kath25 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:40:23 PM PDT

  •  Any sane ones around?

    (Or is that a rhetorical question? :) I have insurance. :) And it would probably make my parents insanely happy, heh.

    by lirtydies on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:47:03 PM PDT

•  it's probably the gays that are doing this nt

  by Yirmiyahu on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:40:36 PM PDT

  •  Well, look what happened...

    first we had gay marriage in MA, now we have access to health insurance.  Not great insurance, but easier than some places.  

    I guess it was a step on the gay agenda I hear so much about.

    by mem from somerville on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:29:49 PM PDT

    •  liberal commie elitist Massachusetts

      First gay marriage, then universal access to health insurance. We're destroying the institution of marriage.... Oh, wait. We have the lowest divorce rate in the country.

      by Yirmiyahu on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:37:11 PM PDT

      •  Someone I know was discussing

        some "movement" by conservatives--LibertyLand or some such crap--where they could all move and by dint of their new numbers could influence and take over the local government, and start getting things done that they wanted.

        I thought: hey, that's what Massachusetts is for....

        Heh.

        by mem from somerville on