Morally cohabitating

[rpp]

I never said anything about lying I wouldn’t for legal reasons and more importantly I wouldn’t because it is just wrong. But companies are now covering non spouses, parrents, I heard some companies may even start covering pets. I figure it won’t be long till other adult dependents will be covered.

As for “Domestic Partner” in modern society that is considered an immoral substitute for a spouse. But what do you call a close friend? When I was growing up we didn’t have any family close enough to help out in an emergency. We did have lifelong neighbors/ friends who we refered to as aunt’s and uncle’s. Even though we were not related. They were listed as alternate points of contact for us if the school couldn’t reach our parrents. If one of them were ever in need of a place to stay they could live with us no questions asked. I that ever happened I would treat them like any of my blood relatives. This person would be a another adult member of my household and I am not really sure what term would be appropriate to describe them.

My grandfather moved in with my parrents. My cousin lived with my parrents a while. And it is quickly approaching the time when my generation will have to take on a greater role in caring for others. I often thought that it was a shame that we have an empty spare bedroom while others don’t have a place to live.

Although I do see where If we offered a home to a young mother who is choosing to keep a child it would have the appearance of impropriety.

I am sorry to see that anyone would have a problem with it. But I am glad to hear about it now before I offered to help anyone out.

In order to qualify for the benefits you are referring to, your “roommate” must either be your spouse or (in some states) your “domestic partner”. It is never merely a roommate. I presumed you knew this.

 

[whatevergirl]

Given the cost of living including the cost of medical insurance, what are the moral issues of cohabitating. Assuming two people are friends and not romantically interested but have over the years developed a close family type relationship. I assume there is no problem with them being room mates (separate bed rooms) and sharing the cost of a house. But what if one has great insurance and the other doesn’t? Most companies will also cover the persons spouse and dependents but not adults other than “spouses”. Unfortunately the definition of spouse keeps getting degraded in the secular world to the point of any adult relation. Does the church have any opinion on taking in a person in need and establishing a formal, but celebate relationship so as to take advantage of ecconomic opportunities?

I wouldn’t present false data to an employer (saying you are in a relationship with someone when you are not) to seek insurance benefits. Depending on the policy language of the employer offering insurance, that can be considered fraud. If you are just asking the question, you need to see your employer’s policy standards for adding a dependent. If it is not open to roommates, that answers your question.

 

[whatevergirl]

I never said anything about lying I wouldn’t for legal reasons and more importantly I wouldn’t because it is just wrong. But companies are now covering non spouses, parrents, I heard some companies may even start covering pets. I figure it won’t be long till other adult dependents will be covered.

As for “Domestic Partner” in modern society that is considered an immoral substitute for a spouse. But what do you call a close friend? When I was growing up we didn’t have any family close enough to help out in an emergency. We did have lifelong neighbors/ friends who we refered to as aunt’s and uncle’s. Even though we were not related. They were listed as alternate points of contact for us if the school couldn’t reach our parrents. If one of them were ever in need of a place to stay they could live with us no questions asked. I that ever happened I would treat them like any of my blood relatives. This person would be a another adult member of my household and I am not really sure what term would be appropriate to describe them.

My grandfather moved in with my parrents. My cousin lived with my parrents a while. And it is quickly approaching the time when my generation will have to take on a greater role in caring for others. I often thought that it was a shame that we have an empty spare bedroom while others don’t have a place to live.

Although I do see where If we offered a home to a young mother who is choosing to keep a child it would have the appearance of impropriety.

I am sorry to see that anyone would have a problem with it. But I am glad to hear about it now before I offered to help anyone out.

An employer has the right to put stipulations in the policy language…otherwise, it would be paying for cousins, third and fourth removed. If it is in the policy language that roomates can be covered, then it would be ok to add a person you’re not romantically involved with.

 

[royal_archer]

An employer has the right to put stipulations in the policy language…otherwise, it would be paying for cousins, third and fourth removed. If it is in the policy language that roomates can be covered, then it would be ok to add a person you’re not romantically involved with.

Assuming it is all ok with the employer/ insurance company, What type of formal dependency relationships are considered moral?

 

[whatevergirl]

Assuming it is all ok with the employer/ insurance company, What type of formal dependency relationships are considered moral?

Hi royal;

I work in this business, and is the word you’re looking for ethical…or is it moral? The employer can open it up to homosexual couples, and domestic partners…the theory being that when the money is taken from the employee’s check for the medical coverage, it is being used for people living in the household, where there is ‘insurable interest.’ I can see where you would want to help someone, but from the point of view of an insurer, or employer extending a policy–they used to only open the coverage up to married couples, and their children. Now, my employer opens it up to domestic partners, etc…and their partners’ children. I thought that was interesting, but many companies are going to this.

I personally don’t find cohabitation, a moral thing, from a religious viewpoint, but from an insurance perspective, if the employer allows it, then it’s legal. Morality really doesn’t play a role in it then. Does that make sense?

If I were you, I would ask your employer what constitutes a dependant on the policy…that would be the language. And then, if they say…if the person if your domestic partner, or spouse–then you will not be permitted to add this person to your policy. Domestic partners typically have to prove their partnership…like maybe a mortgage with both their names on it, or something like this…