TOTALLY GEEKED!

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

RE: Help! The Law Finally Allows Me to Marry My Boyfriend—but He Doesn’t Want To. Slate

Squeakers · Regular

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
You have no idea that at the time they didn't both want that. Sometimes people want things at one point but then later decide they don't.
Well, you know what? If he's changed his mind he now has to live with the consequences of that. So no insurance. Too bad. Gay marriage is now legal in their state so it's no different for them than for heterosexual people. Pony up or lose the insurance. Straight people have been dealing with this for decades.
And I could care less whether he marries or doesn't. If he doesn't want to get married that's his right. He just no longer has the right to insurance.

And not a single person here is saying he should be able to keep the insurance if they don't get married.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

flan327 wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Actually this sounds like a very typical situation where two people go into a relationship with different goals. Obviously one partner wanted to get married and provide bennies for his partner and the other partner was either never into the idea of a long term commitment or seriously changed his mind. They got some special privileges because they were gay and now those privileges are running out. I don't think anyone would recommend them getting married if one of the partners aren't ready. However, you have to live with the consequences of your choices. And one of them is losing the benefits if you do not get married. To me it sounds like one partner cares way more about the relationship than the other. What partner number two needs to do is sit partner number one down and say, "Look, I love you very much and I want to get married. I respect the fact that you don't want to get married right now for whatever reason, but given that I now have to take you off my health insurance. To keep you on would be illegal. You need to make some decisions about what you are going to do to get coverage."

It isn't a gay issue in that this guy is definitely a user. Heteros do that too. So that's not the "gay" issue. The "gay" issue is that they were given special rights to insurance that no one else had. This wouldn't have been an issue if the insurance had said no live ins period. And before you start screaming about how they couldn't get married it's obvious that one of them didn't want that. They gamed the system and now it's time to pay the piper.
It's obvious now, but maybe it wasn't when they moved in together.
flan

You're correct. And maybe he DID change his mind. But it still comes down to the fact that he is now able to legally get married. If he doesn't want to get married, and he shouldn't if he doesn't want to, then he loses the insurance. It's really as simple as that.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Squeakers wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
You have no idea that at the time they didn't both want that. Sometimes people want things at one point but then later decide they don't.
Well, you know what? If he's changed his mind he now has to live with the consequences of that. So no insurance. Too bad. Gay marriage is now legal in their state so it's no different for them than for heterosexual people. Pony up or lose the insurance. Straight people have been dealing with this for decades.
And I could care less whether he marries or doesn't. If he doesn't want to get married that's his right. He just no longer has the right to insurance.
And not a single person here is saying he should be able to keep the insurance if they don't get married.

You have defended him over and over. It sounds like he knew, at some point, he was no longer interested in marriage. That decision didn't just happen when the insurance ran out. He should have been honest about not wanting to get married when he decided he no longer wanted to get married.

Squeakers · Regular

I haven't said he should keep the insurance. You act like he has some nefarious intentions when that doesnt have to be the case. Lots of people think they want to get married and then chicken out when it comes time to pee or get off the pot. At least he is voicing his hesitation (and not outright rejection) before the LW is standing at the alter. And it's not as if it's been stewing long. His state just got marriage equality this month.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Well, all I can say is tough. He's been getting special privileges. Because they were gay they got insurance when they were not married. Now it needs to be taken away. And quickly. This is why insurance is through the roof.

PotteryChick · Member

Many companies allow insurance coverage for cohabiting couples regardless of sexual orientation. Whether states do or not, I don't know. Acting like the gays get so many more benefits is blatantly disingenuous. They don't.

I find nothing amusing about the letter. It's heartbreaking to find out your partner doesn't want to follow the same life plan that you want to.

PotteryChick · Member

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Well, all I can say is tough. He's been getting special privileges. Because they were gay they got insurance when they were not married. Now it needs to be taken away. And quickly. This is why insurance is through the roof.

No. This is not why and saying it is shows an extreme lack of knowledge about insurance. I work in insurance. You are 100% wrong. The gays are not responsible for insurance disfunction.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

PotteryChick wrote:
Many companies allow insurance coverage for cohabiting couples regardless of sexual orientation. Whether states do or not, I don't know. Acting like the gays get so many more benefits is blatantly disingenuous. They don't.

I find nothing amusing about the letter. It's heartbreaking to find out your partner doesn't want to follow the same life plan that you want to.

I never once said I find it amusing. Ever. I don't know where you read that into anything anyone said. If I were the partner that all of a sudden was finding out that my partner didn't want to get married there would be hell to pay. I wouldn't put up with it. But that's me. And I'm not everyone. I'd have already taken him off my insurance and been looking at moving by now. But again, that's me. I don't allow people to use me.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I have never ever heard of an insurance allowing cohabiting couples to have insurance. I know in my state you can declare common law and that some insurance companies will allow that. I do also know that if you have a baby out of wedlock and provide a birth certificate stating you are the parent then you can put the child on your insurance.

PotteryChick · Member

The very first response was laughter.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

That response wasn't me. Okay, so Lily laughed. I don't think anyone else laughed. These two got caught. That's what it comes down to. I don't have sympathy for them.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

PotteryChick wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Well, all I can say is tough. He's been getting special privileges. Because they were gay they got insurance when they were not married. Now it needs to be taken away. And quickly. This is why insurance is through the roof.
No. This is not why and saying it is shows an extreme lack of knowledge about insurance. I work in insurance. You are 100% wrong. The gays are not responsible for insurance disfunction.

Those sneaky gays...

flan

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I don't blame it on gays. I blame it on people getting insurance that shouldn't. And that includes anyone who is cohabiting. If that includes gays then so be it. Marriage is marriage for a reason. Benefits come with marriage. Make it legal. In this situation one person doesn't want to. The insurance should IMMEDIATELY be taken away. So yes, thanks to people like this, and heteros, and anyone trying to get free insurance yes, this is why insurance is like it is. And don't talk to me like I'm stupid. I know a few things about insurance too. I'm a nurse and my DN also works in insurance. So please don't talk down to me.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Squeakers wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Sure, but any user would use whatever circumstances to abuse people. This guy isn't a dick because he is gay, he is just a dick. I bet he would have been a dick no matter what his sexual orientation was. Specials treatment or not, to him it was just a tool.
Nobody said that until you did.
But yeah. He is. And he was before by playing house and using his boyfriend to get insurance.
Something a straight couple cant do.
So I guess it does make it a gay issue.
The issue is this, if you want to be treated equal, then why are you taking advantages of something the hetero community can not. That isn't equal.
That is called talking out of both side of your mouth.
Because the Hetero community was denying them equality so they took what they could get until then..... You are yelling about special privileges, they only "got" them because they were being denied the equality to marry and worked around it. now that they GOT the equality, the "special privlege" is going away and the one guy wants to get married and the other does not.

So a person should get special privileges because they cant legally do something?

Well I guess they do. Look at all the illegals getting the privileges they get.

They shouldn't have had the special privilege in the first place.

You cry equality but then get special privileges. What a load of crap.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

And just and FYI, people actively try to defraud insurance companies all the time.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

What pisses me off is that an exception was made for this community.

Equality would be that if you are not married you don't get the benefits. Period.

But this exception was made. That is what pisses me off.

All the talk about equality means nothing when special privileges are being given.

I can just hear the riot had that been any other group getting that privilege.

PotteryChick · Member

I'm aware that people commit insurance fraud. This wasn't insurance fraud. Most likely the company is self insured. Many companies that are self insured offer the option to cohabiting couples.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I didn't say this was insurance fraud. I said people commit it driving up the costs for everyone else. Happens all the time. And if they no longer intend to get married then this is now insurance fraud. Yes, I'm afraid it is. The company screwed itself IMO because now it has to follow with every gay couple who agreed to tie the knot. I'm sure that is going to cost a ton of money as far as getting documents and paying someone to follow up with them all and get the documents. That's a huge expense. So yes, this does drive up costs. Should never have been allowed in the first place and we wouldn't have these issues.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
Meh. I have heard of similar situations happening with hetero couples here. One want to get married to get on the SO's insurance, the other doesn't want to, etc. I think it is silly.
Right. The LW's situation is not one of being straight or gay, it's about being used for the insurance and allowing themselves to be used. I think people may realize that "little piece of paper" represents a whole lot more than they care to let on.
My thought exactly.
flan
Generally speaking. But hetero couples couldn't get insurance by filing the type of affidavit they did. Hetero couples would have actually had to have gotten married to get the insurance.

Sure they could. My friend carried her live in BF on her insurance for two years.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
Meh. I have heard of similar situations happening with hetero couples here. One want to get married to get on the SO's insurance, the other doesn't want to, etc. I think it is silly.
Right. The LW's situation is not one of being straight or gay, it's about being used for the insurance and allowing themselves to be used. I think people may realize that "little piece of paper" represents a whole lot more than they care to let on.
My thought exactly.
flan
Generally speaking. But hetero couples couldn't get insurance by filing the type of affidavit they did. Hetero couples would have actually had to have gotten married to get the insurance.
Sure they could. My friend carried her live in BF on her insurance for two years.

Maybe that varies by state because I know here I have worked for many companies. MANY. And so has DH. We have never been able to add anyone who is not legally married to us to our insurance.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

It does vary by state but some companies offer (ed) it to all employees regardless of law.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well I have seen lots of cohabitating couples get special priveleges. They live together and mama and the kids are on welfare and she is living with her BF who makes plenty of money to support the family but since they aren't married, even though living in the same house, Mama keeps on collecting.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

It's difficult, but doable, here to get your child on your insurance if you are not legally wed to their mother.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
It's difficult, but doable, here to get your child on your insurance if you are not legally wed to their mother.

Putting your child on your insurance is a completely different thing.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
What pisses me off is that an exception was made for this community.

Equality would be that if you are not married you don't get the benefits. Period.

But this exception was made. That is what pisses me off.

All the talk about equality means nothing when special privileges are being given.

I can just hear the riot had that been any other group getting that privilege.

BUT THIS COUPLE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO MARRY.

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
What pisses me off is that an exception was made for this community.

Equality would be that if you are not married you don't get the benefits. Period.

But this exception was made. That is what pisses me off.

All the talk about equality means nothing when special privileges are being given.

I can just hear the riot had that been any other group getting that privilege.

BUT THIS COUPLE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO MARRY.
flan

Then no benefits.

Again. If this were any other group getting this special treatment, there would be riots.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
It's difficult, but doable, here to get your child on your insurance if you are not legally wed to their mother.
Putting your child on your insurance is a completely different thing.

All I'm saying is that everyone keeps saying how easy it is to put your b/f or g/f on your insurance. In my state it is not easy to even put your child on your insurance. I've never seen anyone be able to put a b/f or g/f on it. Does it happen in some places? I'm sure. I've just never seen it here.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
What pisses me off is that an exception was made for this community.

Equality would be that if you are not married you don't get the benefits. Period.

But this exception was made. That is what pisses me off.

All the talk about equality means nothing when special privileges are being given.

I can just hear the riot had that been any other group getting that privilege.

BUT THIS COUPLE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO MARRY.
flan
Then no benefits.
Again. If this were any other group getting this special treatment, there would be riots.

What "other group?"

Will we need riot police & tear guns?

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
What pisses me off is that an exception was made for this community.

Equality would be that if you are not married you don't get the benefits. Period.

But this exception was made. That is what pisses me off.

All the talk about equality means nothing when special privileges are being given.

I can just hear the riot had that been any other group getting that privilege.

BUT THIS COUPLE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO MARRY.
flan
Then no benefits.
Again. If this were any other group getting this special treatment, there would be riots.
What "other group?"
Will we need riot police & tear guns?
flan

Pick a group. Any group.

And with a riot you generally do have those things.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

There IS no other mysterious "group." That's the point.

flan

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Sure there are. What about polygamists? Why can't they put multiple wives on their insurance? As of right now they cannot. And why not? Shouldn't they have rights?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Sure there are. What about polygamists? Why can't they put multiple wives on their insurance? As of right now they cannot. And why not? Shouldn't they have rights?

Is it legal?

flan

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Well, why isn't it legal? I bet they would argue it should be too.

PotteryChick · Member

Yes they should and yes they can. What is the causing this communication breakdown? Yes there are states that allow more than one wife on their insurance. Why is this so difficult to understand? They pay for the coverage.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Well, if insurance is going to cover whomever, whenever, for whatever you can bet your azz the insurance companies are going to start charging us an arm and a leg. Anyone ever heard that old saying you get what you pay for? Someone has to pay for this health care. If you are not doing it then someone else. Nothing is free. You are trying to present it like everyone can get coverage and no one will have to pay for it. Not true. The more people on a policy the higher it generally is. I don't buy that a policy is going to allow you to have ten wives on your policy for the same price as one. You can pretty this up all you want but I'm not buying it.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Hmmmm, just googled it. Polygamy is illegal in the US unless the facts given are wrong. I also googled insurance regarding that. It said it was "Nearly impossible" to find.

PotteryChick · Member

Of course it isn't the same price. What does it matter to you if I have 12 people covered on my policy if I pay for it? You aren't subsidising it. Do you feel the same way if someone has insurance coverage for 12 children? They're paying the premiums set by the insurance companies.

PotteryChick · Member

Nearly impossible isn't accurate. We offer insurance on ANYTHING for ANYTHING. We recently wrote a policy for someone with regards to the rapture. If you have the money, you can get a policy.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Do I care if you have 12 kids if you pay for them? Nope. As long as you pay for them. Do I care if you have 12 wives? Nope. Not really. As long as your insurance goes up to cover all 12 of them. Should cohabiting people be able to add people free of charge? Nope. And I don't agree with the cohabiting thing anyway. It makes it too crazy. When someone just walks out then it takes a lot of paperwork to get them off. Besides, insuring people who cohabitate leaves the door wide open for people who live together just to get covered by insurance. And yes, that does upset me. Being married makes it a little harder for people to do that. And before you go all high and mighty I know plenty of people who, given the chance, would add people to insurance who they weren't really with just so they could get coverage.

Squeakers · Regular

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Sure there are. What about polygamists? Why can't they put multiple wives on their insurance? As of right now they cannot. And why not? Shouldn't they have rights?

I agree. i have no gripe with polygamists as long as all their spouses are consenting adults.

PotteryChick · Member

I think you're under the false impression that this guy didn't have to pay to have his partner covered. He did. There are different premiums for singles, families and families with children. He didn't have a $46 policy before and after he added his partner.

PotteryChick · Member

It takes a phone call to cancel a policy. It isn't that difficult.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

PotteryChick wrote:
Nearly impossible isn't accurate. We offer insurance on ANYTHING for ANYTHING. We recently wrote a policy for someone with regards to the rapture. If you have the money, you can get a policy.

The average person doesn't have that kind of money and I think you know it.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

PotteryChick wrote:
It takes a phone call to cancel a policy. It isn't that difficult.

For YOUR insurance. Maybe you work for some magical insurance company where they will do anything for anyone but the average joe out there does not have that kind of insurance. It takes an act of congress to get a real live person on the phone when you call an insurance company. And getting anything done takes tons of paperwork. Don't know who you work for but every insurance I've ever had required tons of it.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Sure there are. What about polygamists? Why can't they put multiple wives on their insurance? As of right now they cannot. And why not? Shouldn't they have rights?
Is it legal?
flan

If it isn't, they just need a letter saying it is ok. And then if it becomes legal that privilege will be gone.

That is the point. being illegal means special privilege. Right?

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

PotteryChick wrote:
I think you're under the false impression that this guy didn't have to pay to have his partner covered. He did. There are different premiums for singles, families and families with children. He didn't have a $46 policy before and after he added his partner.

How do you know? Do you know him personally?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

PotteryChick wrote:
I think you're under the false impression that this guy didn't have to pay to have his partner covered. He did. There are different premiums for singles, families and families with children. He didn't have a $46 policy before and after he added his partner.

I understand that he paid for it.

But the thing is, they were not a legal family. But the got a special privilege. That is the problem.

I cant put m adult daughter on my insurance plan.

If a child is over 26 they can not be on an insurance with their parents.

But here is a special privilege given to a couple of guys living together. Let's not even talk about the type of relationship. Two guys living together got a privilege a child and parent cant get.

Squeakers · Regular

lilyofcourse wrote:
PotteryChick wrote:
I think you're under the false impression that this guy didn't have to pay to have his partner covered. He did. There are different premiums for singles, families and families with children. He didn't have a $46 policy before and after he added his partner.
I understand that he paid for it.
But the thing is, they were not a legal family. But the got a special privilege. That is the problem.

I cant put m adult daughter on my insurance plan.
If a child is over 26 they can not be on an insurance with their parents.
But here is a special privilege given to a couple of guys living together. Let's not even talk about the type of relationship. Two guys living together got a privilege a child and parent cant get.

Tell your daughter to go move in with a woman and get the same affidavit.

Empyreal · Senior Member

More Merlot...