obamacare marital separation

[royal_archer]

I would speak with your pastor to find out if it is moral to obtain a civil divorce (for whatever reason you may have) when your intention is to remain married and living together. I would guess that your priest would counsel you against such actions but you probably already know that.

I think the problem here is that you feel what so many others do, that “nice guys finish last” and that by being honest and paying taxes you are just getting used. All around you are people who lie, cheat and steal and they seem to be getting away with it and it is totally frustrating!

Jesus knows you, Jesus knows your heart. Jesus knows you are hard-working and that you are a man of honor. Jesus knows that you are working hard to support your family and that you are frustrated by rising costs and by all of your expenses and bills. Jesus knows that you are angry looking at the people living sinful lifestyles around you and that you are upset it seems that hard-working people never get a break.

Take your frustrations to Christ, give them to Him. He knows the heavy cross of frustration you are feeling right now. He has the answers for you and He knows what you need, I will pray for you. God bless.

I am debating the sanity of getting angry. I started think of it in these sports terms. We are on the sports field of life playing soccer and somewhere along the way they switched to American Football. Now we are upset because they are blocking and tackling. Maybe we just need to get with the program and accept the rules of the games we are playing. Interceptions are legal, so are quarter back seeks, even running down the clock is legal within certain restrictions even if the opponent doesn’t always see as good sportsmanship. The government is offering these services as long as we meet certain arbitrary qualifications.

Bottom line is that my being a catholic provides some road blocks, as a citizen, I am not seeing any other than a temporary alteration of lifestyle.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I am debating the sanity of getting angry. I started think of it in these sports terms. We are on the sports field of life playing soccer and somewhere along the way they switched to American Football. Now we are upset because they are blocking and tackling. Maybe we just need to get with the program and accept the rules of the games we are playing. Interceptions are legal, so are quarter back seeks, even running down the clock is legal within certain restrictions even if the opponent doesn’t always see as good sportsmanship. The government is offering these services as long as we meet certain arbitrary qualifications.

Bottom line is that my being a catholic provides some road blocks, as a citizen, I am not seeing any other than a temporary alteration of lifestyle.

You have not once addresses me the issue if commiting perjury on your application. Which you would have to do to receive benefits.

 

[royal_archer]

You have not once addresses me the issue if commiting perjury on your application. Which you would have to do to receive benefits.

When I said that anything I did would be within the letter of the law, I meant all laws including perjury. If there was a civil separation where one party walked away with no legal obligation of financial support from the other party (lawyer would have to work out the details) then the fact I would be willing to provide support out of my own free will at a later date might be irrelevant.

 

[Jon_S_1]

When I said that anything I did would be within the letter of the law, I meant all laws including perjury. If there was a civil separation where one party walked away with no legal obligation of financial support from the other party (lawyer would have to work out the details) then the fact I would be willing to provide support out of my own free will at a later date might be irrelevant.

And what about on the welfare application where it states list all household income and list all unearned income.

You will list the following income for your wife as income:

The rent/mortgage you pay
Groceries you buy
Utilities you pay
Cell phone payment
Children’s expenses
Spending money
Money given for vacations/entertainment
Gifts given

Etc…

And she could still qualify for welfare? Hmmm

Your wife who is filling out the application would have to fill it out with this info. Regardless of how she got it as far as welfare is concerned it is unearned income and factored in deciding benefits.

You see it’s real fine and dandy to Rail against the straw man, but the reality is a system that cannot be abused honestly, but do to people’s gross immorality and the enlightenment culture many lie and deceive and commit fraud.

I hope you don’t become one of them.

 

[royal_archer]

And what about on the welfare application where it states list all household income and list all unearned income.

You will list the following income for your wife as income:

The rent/mortgage you pay
Groceries you buy
Utilities you pay
Cell phone payment
Children’s expenses
Spending money
Money given for vacations/entertainment
Gifts given

Etc…

yep if required by law.

And she could still qualify for welfare? Hmmm

Don’t know. All I can do is lay it out and see what the government would like to give out.

 

[LilyM]

yep, that is probably the biggest flaw in the plan. However, I believe that this will change over time. With Civil unions, gay “marriage”, no fault divorce, etc. etc, etc. I believe that eventually they will eventually be forced to separate the two. can you imagine a day in the not so far future where the state takes away the churches ability to witness civil marriages unless they also conduct gay marriages? if this is the case, do you think the church would hesitate to offer religious marriages outside the civil marriage system?

Most people are not open minded enough to look into the future and many are mentally stuck in the past and not able to comprehend this. But in the future when this starts becoming the norm, consider that I told you so first.

Irrelevant.

The fact that being human is currently (for example re human rights law) legally defined a bit differently to what you would like doesn’t make you any the less a human.

The fact that marriage is, or may be in future, defined differently to what you would like equally makes you no less married.

You can no more deny that you are married than you can deny that Jews in Nazi Germany were human, with all the rights and responsibilities of being human, even though the Nazi government tried hard indeed to deny that fact.

 

[Book_Worm]

Because it has a large and diverse readership who can quickly give summaries of relevant information which could be the start of more detailed research.

Why are you hear if you have such disdain for us?

**I did not say that was my opinion of the people on this board; I did not see the logic (nor do I now) of asking people who have no expertise or experience for their advice on how to defraud the government. I merely surmised that might have been YOUR reason to post here. Honestly, I cannot think of any other reason why you would think this particular board would be a source of information on how to pursue illegal means to obtain money. As, you might have noticed, it has not been.

And I have paid into the welfare state all of my life. unlike many SS recipients, I am not hoping to get out more than I put in, I am just trying to get out some of what I put in.
I have lost jobs due lay offs. the last of which cam when Obama shut down the program I was working on. Although I have had to move, take pay cuts, live in remote locations, even sleep in my car, I have never gotten a dime of welfare. I am tired of people who are able bodied, who loose their jobs, not even apply for the wealth of jobs available for one excuse after another:, “the hours are too long”, “its too far away”, “I make more on unemployment”, “I don’t want to do that”; etc. etc. I have helped several people find jobs and if they follow my advice they always find jobs. the ones who do not make a complete effort, are the only ones who do not find jobs.

If these programs were temporary assistance and driven to getting people back to work, that would be one thing. But these programs are designed to foster long term dependency and long term support of the liberal politicians.

******Contrary to what Fox and the Heritage Foundation would have you believe, the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients collect benefits for less than two years, the time it would take to help a woman who loses her husband to learn skills to enter the work force or a worker to retrain when his skills become outmoded. By the grace of God and a bit of luck, we’ll collect SS for longer than that, which would account for the “long-term” dependency. ****

The alternative is to actually help those who need it around you. Do you feel that the American People are incapable of helping each other without strong arm politicians? I did not say I needed it yet.

******History has proven that all people, not just Americans, are either unwilling or unable to provide adequate support for others. Alms houses and work houses bear testimony to that, as do the many people who die because they cannot afford health insurance. Additionally, society now recognizes that we, as a country, benefit when those who need assistance are given it. ****

It is not lying. it is merely adjusting our situation to a condition which would allow for us to get equal treatment under the law. For years I have complained about the system but At some point you have to stop complaining about things that can not be changed and adapt to society as it is. I don’t like it but things are what they are.

**It is lying. It is saying that your marriage is ended when you and your wife both consider yourselves married. It is saying that your DW cannot support herself and does not have a husband who is capable and willing to do so. As a tax-payer, I can resent your sticking your hand into MY pocket to support yourself, but as a Catholic, the fact that you are lying to yourself about what you are doing is far more distressing. I cannot imagine how your wife must feel to have a husband who wants to divorce her because she is disabled and cannot contribute financially to the marriage, who wants her to lie to the government and take money to which she is not entitled. I must remember to thank God tonight for having a husband who does not hold me in such little regard, who would want me to lie and perjure myself to put a few dollars in his pocket.

But it’s okay, isn’t it, because others are doing the same thing? (I think we convinced DD that was not a morally acceptable argument by the time she was about twelve.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

This isn’t about a punishment for being married. Putting in restrictions to try and make sure that welfare only goes to those who actually need it is not about punishing those who are married. Just like fighting to preserve marriage as between one man and one woman is not about discriminating against those with homosexual tendencies. In both cases we are trying to preserve a good thing. It is a good thing to have a safety net in place for those who really need it, just as it is a good thing to promote and encourage stable marriages between the biological parents of children as studies have shown that the best environment for a child to grow up in is a loving and stable home in which he/she is cared for by his/her biological parents. Attempting to restrict welfare handouts to those who really need it is not discriminating against people who are married, its merely trying to preserve the nature of what welfare is supposed to be, the safety net for those in our society who truly need financial help. Framing it any other way is just avoiding the real issue at hand.

When the state enacts laws that increasingly depart from any rational purpose, where is the point, if any, at which we no longer have an obligation to follow their 'spirit", as long as we follow the “letter”?

We have welfare laws and exemptions that qualify people for benefits on the sole grounds that they qualified for some other benefit, never mind whether they actually qualified for the one in question. We have totally distorted the purpose of providing marital benefits, so that now one’s homosexual paramour gets a housing allowance and other benefits if one is in the military. It could not be plainer that was not the original purpose of that program. We have now a “national health insurance” program in place for which thousands of waivers have been issued for purely political reasons. We have tax exemptions that are cynically worded as to apply to a “group” craftily defined as to apply only to one person or company. And the government itself has said it will not check the actual qualifications of people for Obamacare subsidies for some time yet.

So, where does the line get drawn? Again, I’m not talking about the letter of the law here. To what degree are we obligated to follow the 'spirit" of it when the spirit is warped or ignored by the government itself?

Not saying I favor civil divorce at all. But as civil “marriage” becomes ever more meaningless, can civil divorce be any more meaningful?

 

[royal_archer]

Just a little more to the story.
marketwatch.com/story/why-your-boss-is-dumping-your-wife-2013-02-22

But not for Obama care many more Americans would have been covered with insurance.

 

[royal_archer]

**It is lying. It is saying that your marriage is ended when you and your wife both consider yourselves married. It is saying that your DW cannot support herself and does not have a husband who is capable and willing to do so. As a tax-payer, I can resent your sticking your hand into MY pocket to support yourself, but as a Catholic, the fact that you are lying to yourself about what you are doing is far more distressing. I cannot imagine how your wife must feel to have a husband who wants to divorce her because she is disabled and cannot contribute financially to the marriage, who wants her to lie to the government and take money to which she is not entitled. I must remember to thank God tonight for having a husband who does not hold me in such little regard, who would want me to lie and perjure myself to put a few dollars in his pocket.

But it’s okay, isn’t it, because others are doing the same thing? (I think we convinced DD that was not a morally acceptable argument by the time she was about twelve.)

With regard to civil vs holy marriage: These are two separate entities. with an ever decreasing set of common factors.
one is between men and women, the other is not. one is for life, the other when convenient. One is contractual the other is not. One obligates the other to conjugal availability, the other does not. One is oriented primarily towards procreation, the other is not. These are two entities that share little more than a name.

The snide remark about others doing the same thing is a bit off the mark. The fact others are getting away with it is not the point, nor is it relevant. What is relevant is the precedent when the government has consistently handled those of potential ability who have not acted on that ability by not considering what people could do and only considering what they are doing. They are not interviewing people and denying them access to services because they are physically and mentally capable of attaining those services outside the government systems.

Now think of it this way, there are many women who have men who are capable and willing to help them but they choose not to be married to those men. So how are you picking and choosing who in that situation is in the wrong and who is in the right? Are other attractive young ladies who could easily get a husband to take care of them financially committing fraud because they are turning down the private support and choosing the government support?

 

[YADA]

Then why are you advocating for a system that financially punishes those who are married?

People should care for those who need it, not funnel half of their income to politicians so they can use it to buy votes.

No I have been very clear that anything I intend to do would be within the law. why do you think I have been searching for information on the relevant laws. Through your motivations, and preconceived notions you have convinced your self of motivations that are in clear and direct conflict with what I actually said.

Welfare by coercion is socialism / communism. Advocating for welfare is advocating for these systems.

I do not think our social welfare programs are a beneficial method of helping low income families or individuals … and you play lip service decrying this system … while at the same time - you are planning on getting on that same band wagon … … you should be promoting laws, regulations and elected officials that would promote programs that are more effective, rather then trying to game the system your self …

 

[Viki63]

Dear OP
I am under the impression that people not eligible for coverage under Obamacare, Medicare or Medicaid can apply for subsidies to purchase health insurance. See here.
Are you not able to do this?
My deductible this year under my employer coverage for both my husband and me was $7000, which I am still paying off. My husband is disabled and not employed. It’s expensive but not insurmountable.
I figure things will be pretty difficult for many people for the next few years, until we get it all sorted out. But civil divorce seems pretty extreme to me.

 

[St_Francis]

With Obamacare and my employer being forced to shed healthcare costs, our costs are going through the roof. my wife has no income and I was wondering if there were any options to a civil separation so we could divide the income. EG, could she go on disability, welfare, obamacare while I continue to work with my income insulated from her. Are there any resources on how to approach this and calculate the potential savings/income. If we do anything I want to be sure to do it by the book.

Here is something which may answer some of your questions regarding your options.

You can use this calculator to determine your situation.

 

[royal_archer]

Dear OP
I am under the impression that people not eligible for coverage under Obamacare, Medicare or Medicaid can apply for subsidies to purchase health insurance. See here.
Are you not able to do this?
My deductible this year under my employer coverage for both my husband and me was $7000, which I am still paying off. My husband is disabled and not employed. It’s expensive but not insurmountable.
I figure things will be pretty difficult for many people for the next few years, until we get it all sorted out. But civil divorce seems pretty extreme to me.​

Those exchanges are welfare and are subsidized by employers are others who do not get special treatment. My wife does not qualify because of me.
I do not believe they intend to sort it out. This is step one: destroy employer coverage. Step 2 is to fund through tax support. Step 3 full government control.

 

[royal_archer]

I do not think our social welfare programs are a beneficial method of helping low income families or individuals … and you play lip service decrying this system … while at the same time - you are planning on getting on that same band wagon … … you should be promoting laws, regulations and elected officials that would promote programs that are more effective, rather then trying to game the system your self …

Yes i am arguing. But at the same time. We have to play within the laws as they are written.