It was only last February that Brandy Brady met Ricky Huggins at a Mardi Gras ball here. By April, they had decided to marry.
Ms. Brady says she loves Mr. Huggins, but she worries they are moving too fast. She questions how well they really know each other, and wants to better understand his mood swings.
But Ms. Brady, 38, also finds much to admire in Mr. Huggins, who is three years older. He strikes her as trustworthy and caring. He has a stable job as a plumber and a two-bedroom house. And perhaps above all, said Ms. Brady, who received a kidney transplant last year, “He’s got great insurance.”
More than romance, the couple readily acknowledge, it is Mr. Huggins’s Blue Cross/Blue Shield HMO policy that is driving their rush to the altar.
In a country where insurance is out of reach for many, it is not uncommon for couples to marry, or even to divorce, at least partly so one spouse can obtain or maintain health coverage.
There is no way to know how often it happens, but lawyers and patient advocacy groups say they see cases regularly.
In a poll conducted this spring by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy research group, 7 percent of adults said someone in their household had married in the past year to gain access to insurance. The foundation cautions that the number should not be taken literally, but rather as an intriguing indicator that some Americans “are making major life decisions on the basis of health care concerns.”
If it’s only a civil contract then marry early and often and when it works to your pecuniary advantge.
Lack of affordable health insurance in Texas/the USA is a big part of what’s inspiring my husband and me to move to Costa Rica in October.
Unfortunately, we have become aware that the Anglican church there is quite liberal, which inspires us to attend the local RC church in our community.
I couldn’t figure out why Rush Limbaugh needed to marry to get health insurance. He’s pretty rich, after all.
Sorta like old folks living together so as not to marry and affect the Social Security checks or young folks not getting married and reduce the Medicaid benefits, except in reverse?!
Civil marriage has many purposes which are not the same thing as Christian marriage is supposed to be. Of course, enculturation should justify these reasons … especially to the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC understanding of marriage.
Not necessarily, dwstroudmd. I think reappraisers can think all sorts of things about marriage.
If anything, I believe marriage should be “outsourced” to religious institutions. Let the state be the representative for all civil unions that require legal protection, be it straight or gay. Let religions decide who they want to marry or not. If someone wants to just get married, without benefits, let them do that.
I would marry a couple who decided that they didn’t need the state’s approval or protection.
What I see more often in churches is an elevation of the pagan ideal of romance, and an enthronement of the princess during the liturgy. I’m just echoing, however, the conservative Gil Meilaender (who was my professor in college way back).
I don’t know how many would choose marriage without civil union, however.
Well, marriage for temporal benefit is a lot older than marriage for romantic love, and can actually wear better, since the expectations are lower. Mind you, health benefits…hmm. It does remind one a tiny bit of that line from ‘A Man for All Seasons’: “Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for Wales?”