Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,691,371 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
I have seen this more than once. A spouse or child gets an illness and they need medical care. But they cannot get it because they have no insurance and the employer of the working spouse probably does not offer family insurance (more and more of them are not even offering ANY insurance). So then you face the choice of stying together and watching the spouse or child DIE from no treatment or you get a divorce to get the sick spouse or child on Medicaid. This is what the "party of family values" favours! What would YOU do??
I would sell my house/move somewhere cheaper, get rid of my car (I ride a bike for 90% of my trips now anyway) to pay for it. My first question for them is if they are actually living within their means. Move in with friends/family/cut expenses any way you can.
I am also not voting in your poll. Your ignorance is disgusting.
The article didn't mention once if they have petitioned non-profits for money to help with the situation. The funds are there in the private sector, it is pathetic when people turn to the government first instead of looking for resources that are already there. My church regularly holds funding drives to pay for things like this.
But then again, the liberal way is to assume the government should make your life perfect. We should be able to sit around at home, do nothing and have the government pay for our every need, right? What a wonderful world, when liberals like you forget what the term 'responsibility' means.
I have seen this more than once. A spouse or child gets an illness and they need medical care. But they cannot get it because they have no insurance and the employer of the working spouse probably does not offer family insurance (more and more of them are not even offering ANY insurance). So then you face the choice of stying together and watching the spouse or child DIE from no treatment or you get a divorce to get the sick spouse or child on Medicaid. This is what the "party of family values" favours! What would YOU do??
Of course I would do just that.. the life of my child comes before anything else. Once my child is treated and recovered I could always get legally married again to my husband..
But.. let's remember.. divorces sometimes takes a lot of time and is no so easy.. so unless the divorce and application process could happen in a timely manner it may be fruitless.
Isn't it sad that that is the choice that some people may be left with because of the heartless indifference of some?
to the person that talked about cutting expenses.. you need a reality check.. even if they cut all their expenses they still wouldn't be able to afford medical treatment... most working families couldn't.. it's too costly without insurance.
It's actually pretty common in most of the states I have lived. In order to qualify for many types of assistance you have to utilize all the resources you have before qualifying. Most of the recent articles around here have been about qualifying for nursing homes where one spouse divorces the other and divests themselves of all their assets to them or the kids.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,691,371 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound
It's actually pretty common in most of the states I have lived. In order to qualify for many types of assistance you have to utilize all the resources you have before qualifying. Most of the recent articles around here have been about qualifying for nursing homes where one spouse divorces the other and divests themselves of all their assets to them or the kids.
It really is not worth it to get married these days. There really is no benefit in it for either party. Just live together I say. I only got married because my wife is Canadian and the Immigration Service required it for her to become a resident. Otherwise I never would have did it. That way if the spouse or kids get cancer, you can just "move out" and they can get help.
I have seen this more than once. A spouse or child gets an illness and they need medical care. But they cannot get it because they have no insurance and the employer of the working spouse probably does not offer family insurance (more and more of them are not even offering ANY insurance). So then you face the choice of stying together and watching the spouse or child DIE from no treatment or you get a divorce to get the sick spouse or child on Medicaid. This is what the "party of family values" favours! What would YOU do??
Well I can't get married so divorce is kind of moot.
In any case, I think I'd rather take a nice drive to Canada.
There are plenty of people out there who get married for health insurance. A good acquaintance of mine is hurrying to marry her fiance because she needs health insurance badly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
