Why is it legal for insurance/pension people to keep us from being married ????

Question

I am 51, my (girlfriend) is 49... She is a widow, her husband was a good father and husband, and worked in a steel mill in Gary for 25 yrs before he retired at 43... At 45,he was attacked and killed trying to defend a girl who was being beat up by her boyfriend during a new years-eve party at their house.Less than two years later, she is diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer, but to despite all odds, survives...Five years later, we become romantically involved, and decide to live together. We would love more than anything to be legally married, but face too many penalties for this to be possible... She would lose her husbands pension, which after escalating insurance costs is only about $350 a month... She is currently paying about $250 a month for continued coverage, but with a $1500 deductable... which means she is doing without most coverage, unless it is emergency situations, even though she is paying $250 a month for coverage.... Why is this ????

Her husband was a good man, and loved his family.Why should it legal to tell her if she remarried she would loose everything he worked for for so long ??? She deserves the benefits of his devotion to his job... Put yourself in her place, and try to rationalize this situation... I would like to add, since 2000, her insurance payment has went from $90 something per month to about $250 now...And the amount from which the insurance is deducted has shrunk considerably, as well... Why is it legal for insurance/pension funds to rape the people it was intended to preserve in older age ???I guess we have to choose between being moral and having enough to cover the bills...Are we the only people who are thinking this iwrong ??? I must add I am disabled, and cannot work a full time job anymore... Why are insurance companies afforded the luxury of depriving the individual of personal integrity because they do not want to grow old alone ??? Whato do to rectify this situaion ?????

Thanks everyone, with the exception of "dave"... I am not an old car, dave, and people certainly do not "trade up" or "trade down" other people...at least, the decent,sincere ones do not... What an obnoxious comment....Bet you are a load of fun at Thanksgiving....

Answer 1

Your wife received a "widow's pension" due to the death of her husband. If she remarrys, she is no longer a widow. Nobody is picking on her. That's the way things work. The purpose of a widows pension is to help her survive due to losing her husband.

Instead of marriage, why don't you two draw up a contract that would protect each of you if something should happen to the other person... Then plan a great commitment celebration at home with flowers, dress, tux, friends and champagne. Have a friend read something wonderful about love - or better yet, each of you write your own personal vows and recite to each other. You can exchange rings.

A piece of paper doesn't make a marriage...

Answer 2

Spousal benefits were put into place to take care of a widow or widower when the primary provider dies. They were never set up to continue to pay if the spouse remarries.

Here is an example of your logic carried too far..

Woman is married, husband dies and she gets spousal benefits. She marries again but gets to KEEP the spousal benefits. Her new husband dies and she gets spousal benefits from him also. She remarries again, KEEPS both spousal benefits from the two previous husbands and suddenly this husband dies also. Now she is getting the spousal benefits from three husbands. Makes it well worth her while to marry OLD men and perhaps even to knock them off...

By limiting the spousal benefits for a widow or widower for only the period they remain unmarried, it prevents such an "accumulation of wealth." It also ensures a person marries a widow or widower for love and not for the benefits that would still keep coming if the benefits were not ended.

Last comment, if her first husband was such a good provider and she has those benefits, if you can not provider for her equally, then she is trading down. She may not want to do that.

Just live together if the benefits are so important.

Answer 3

The state of Massachusetts recognizes comparable-intercourse marriage however the federal government and the U.S. militia does not. It sucks that your fiancee has to go with between marrying the girl she loves and final interior the interest she loves :-((( Is her profession in a field or profession the place she could be waiting to locate an analogous new interest interior the civilian sector if she married you and have been given kicked out of the militia? perhaps you 2 could desire to attend till Obama takes place of work and spot if he plans to do something to overrule the "do no longer Ask do no longer tell" coverage.

Answer 4

The issue is that they are not keeping you from getting married. They simply state that there are financial penalties for doing so (and in some cases, very legitimate).
My 84 yr old mother in law and 95 yr old sweetheart live in "sin". For exactly this reason.
Hey, I like the contract and committment idea.

Answer 5

Insurance companies are the devil, to put it politely.

I would consult the pension policy and a good lawyer in your area to verify that she would loose the benefits if you married. For some reason that just does not seem right.