Is common law marriage ok here? Once again, not the matter that someone's life may have been saved with a diagnosis of cancer, but the overall emphasis is on cost...nobody worries if you live or die sometimes, only what you cost others...sad..if you develop a chronic condition, are you a "bad" body not worth medical care? Two employees laid off over the medical cost...one more reason not to place the burden of insurance on employers..it does make a difference to small company bottom lines for profits and some just can't make it with the additional overhead...a reason why many employers are dropping insurance coverage so they can focus on running a business rather than having the overhead such as this related to profit margins. Now this person is at fault for having a "bad body" and might be very unpopular with everyone...but what if the marriage was not common law...would this have made a difference as far as the medical care with the same scenario...he would still be the "bad body" that caused all of this...and how many others have done the same thing? BD
Cronin said he asked if they were legally married, and that Conrad said they had been living together for more than 20 years and considered their relationship a "common law" marriage, Cronin wrote in his report. Conrad claimed that another school employee told Markle other people had done the same thing, Cronin said.
Food Services Director Erika Murphy, told police she had to lay off employees because of the money spent on Markle's boyfriend, Officer Thomas Donovan wrote in a report. "Murphy stated that as a result of Markle's fraud, her budget had a loss of approximately $60,000, which caused her to lay off at least two employees," Donovan wrote.
Police: Boyfriend on health insurance cost town $200K - EagleTribune.com, North Andover, MA
This is a sad situation for not only the "common law" couple, but also too for the two employees who lost their jobs. However, you are placing the blame in the wrong place. The blame clearly lies with both Merkle and Conrad.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, it appears from your posting that common law marriage is an eligible class of employee for the health plan. If so, why did Merkle/Conrad just do the right thing and become legally common law?
Second, while business do have an issue with additional costs for health care, they would still have the cost issue if we left the employer provided insurance world. Instead of the employer paying the premiums, they would be paying additional taxes to cover the costs. And don't for a moment believe that the govt can deliver health care at a lower cost than the private sector.