The former wife vs. the new wife regarding financial obligations

[lovesMountains]

Originally Posted by JustJulia

Even with most insurance, a parent would have to pay the emergency room copay (mine is $150) and other fees. Even a trip to the regular doctor incurs a copay. And then you have the cost of any prescriptions and any other incidental costs (X-rays, anesthesiologist, whatever) that may arise. And the money from this has to be paid now, unless the parent is a deadbeat who takes advantage of hospitals and doesn't ever pay, and I hope that's not your advised solution.

Even if a parent's insurance covered the entire ordeal (such as if the parent had a great policy or AFLAC to cover the difference), the money to pay these premiums has to be paid.

The money doesn't materialize out of thin air, obviously. Someone has to pay it. Child + Parent costs more than Person alone. The non-custodial parent helps make up the difference of the two.

Reasonable, intelligent, educated people know this I'm hoping that anyone who didn't understand this before has learned something from your post

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by JustJulia

Even with most insurance, a parent would have to pay the emergency room copay (mine is $150) and other fees. Even a trip to the regular doctor incurs a copay. And then you have the cost of any prescriptions and any other incidental costs (X-rays, anesthesiologist, whatever) that may arise. And the money from this has to be paid now, unless the parent is a deadbeat who takes advantage of hospitals and doesn't ever pay, and I hope that's not your advised solution.

Even if a parent's insurance covered the entire ordeal (such as if the parent had a great policy or AFLAC to cover the difference), the money to pay these premiums has to be paid.

The money doesn't materialize out of thin air, obviously. Someone has to pay it. Child + Parent costs more than Person alone. The non-custodial parent helps make up the difference of the two.

And if you're going to take a child to a doctor, you should be willing to pay the expense out of your pocket for the insurance.

Personally, I would never take a child to those quacks or go to them myself, but many people will seek medical care from others.

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by Opyelie

Well apparently you're too simple to have realised it takes TWO parents to make a child, why should only the custodial parent have to support the child (in your scenario where the NONcustodial parent pays but it's not really "support").

Why should only one have custody? Why should they not remain married in the first place?

Shotgun weddings are a great idea.

[JustJulia]

Originally Posted by TKramar

And if you're going to take a child to a doctor, you should be willing to pay the expense out of your pocket for the insurance.

Personally, I would never take a child to those quacks or go to them myself, but many people will seek medical care from others.

Yes, most parents will take a child to the doctor for a broken arm. That's what we're discussing. Fortunately, the law does not agree with you, anyway. It sides with the child who needs appropriate medical care now.

[Keeper]

closed for mod review