Chit Chat

Odd PPD Question, Not Sure Where to Post

2»

Re: Odd PPD Question, Not Sure Where to Post

  • emmaaaemmaaa North Carolina
    Moderator 2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary
    mod
    Random addition to the conversation: Even though DH and I are married now, I am not adding him to my work insurance (for a town government) because it is too damn expensive. It is much cheaper to get him a separate plan.

  • jenna8984jenna8984 clam bakes & patriots
    5000 Comments 500 Love Its Second Anniversary First Answer
    member
    edited March 2015

    Thank you all for your responses. I was getting very confused when I was reading some of the anecdotes about having to have a quick ceremony for "Insurance Purposes". When I filled out my insurance paperwork at work I just checked the "Common-law" box and filled out my partner's name. 


    I do agree that if presented with the option of a PPD there are some people that will do it no matter what. 
    Oh, girl. Anytime you find yourself imagining that the health insurance process in the US is in any way simple, smooth, or easy, feel free to go ahead and imagine the exact opposite of that. Then you'll be a bit closer to what it's like to navigate the system down here...
    I've heard!!! It makes me want to bitch slap people who whine about our system up here! Especially if you have a baby. I had a high risk pregnancy and was followed by an OB, neurologist, haemotolgist, immunologist and my own family doctor. I had Ultrasounds every 4 weeks and was in the hospital for 48 hours when my son was born. He's 2, I would still be paying for his birth if I was in the States. 
    This really varies from insurance policy to insurance policy. One of my FI's coworkers had a similar pregnancy: $500 for everything out of pocket. And they used their HSA for all of the expense. It's a pretty rare case, but it still happens. Not all insurance in the US sucks - but they're all a pain in the ass to get into place when you need them. (And I'm not sticking up for the insurance system. They're all a pain in the ass.)
    I'm just going on the fact that I was unemployed at the time of my son's birth and my partner didn't have auxiliary insurance through work so we were only going through our provincial program. I didn't have to pay for doctors, hospital visits or stays or medication in the hospital, but any prescriptions at home or if I wanted a semi-private or private room at the hospital would have to have been paid for out-of-pocket.




    BOX

    Luckily there are some state run insurances for people who qualify (like those laid off). My friend went into labor at 25 weeks and put on hospital bedrest for 5 weeks until they deemed it safe to deliver. The baby was in the ICU for nearly 8 weeks before he was discharged. She was unemployed and eligible/ covered by MassHealth (the state insurance) and she didn't pay anything out of pocket.

                                                                     

    image

  • amelishaamelisha Canadian Texas
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its First Answer Name Dropper
    member

    Very interesting discussion! I'm in Canada as well, and both my employer and my boyfriends will allow us to be on each others benefits after 1 yr of living together. I believe in AB to considered common law it is 3 years living together.

    I think that's right as well, although I don't think it's mandatory. I could be wrong though.

    I know to put FI on my health insurance as a common-law spouse I just had to initial something verifying we'd been living together at least six months, and that was it and now he gets my benefits exactly the same as if we were already married. His work benefits are through a different provider though and they want proof that you actually file common-law on your taxes to add me to his, so we're just waiting until we're married to add me to his. My benefits are a little better than his so it doesn't really matter too much to me for our purposes - I just get 100% prescription coverage through mine but he has to pay dispensing fees on his so it's better for him to use mine for his meds.

    Common-law marriage is obviously very different up here from the responses I've been reading and it's pretty interesting, though.

    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    image
  • After college I shared an apartment with a very good friend who is a gay man for 4 years. We always joked that we were husband-and-wife because according to the local laws you are common-law married after living with someone of the opposite sex for 3 years, though I have no idea what that actually meant or if we would have been eligible for any benefits even if we wanted them. But I like to tease that he's my first husband and maybe my FI should be jealous.
  • blabla89blabla89 Atlanta
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary Name Dropper
    member
    emmaaa said:

    Random addition to the conversation: Even though DH and I are married now, I am not adding him to my work insurance (for a town government) because it is too damn expensive. It is much cheaper to get him a separate plan.

    Same here, because my employer tacks on a fee of $150/month to have a spouse on your plan if they're eligble for a plan through their own employer. Not sure if FI's company does or not.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker



    emmaaa
  • hellosweetie1015hellosweetie1015 Where the skies are so blue
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    member
    According to the Bossmen, Alabama still recognizes common-law marriage, with fairly simple guidelines.

    - Both parties have to be competent and able to enter into marriage
    - Both parties have to live together as husband and wife
    - Both parties have to present as husband and wife
    - Both parties have to intend to present as husband and wife
    - Both parties have to consummate the marriage 

    There's no length of time involved - if FI and I started presenting as husband and wife intentionally tomorrow, we'd be common-law married tomorrow. IF you're common-law married, though, you still have to go get a formal Courthouse divorce. There's no dissolution of the marriage after X amount of years.
    Daisypath Wedding tickers
    image
  • CMGragainCMGragain
    10000 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 25 Answers
    member
    edited March 2015
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    Common-law marriage in the United States can still be contracted in nine states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Utah and Texas) and the District of Columbia. New Hampshire recognizes common-law marriage for purposes of probate only, and Utah recognizes common-law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order.[1]


    httpiimgurcomTCCjW0wjpg
  • emmaaaemmaaa North Carolina
    Moderator 2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary
    mod
    blabla89 said:

    emmaaa said:

    Random addition to the conversation: Even though DH and I are married now, I am not adding him to my work insurance (for a town government) because it is too damn expensive. It is much cheaper to get him a separate plan.

    Same here, because my employer tacks on a fee of $150/month to have a spouse on your plan if they're eligble for a plan through their own employer. Not sure if FI's company does or not.
    It would be about $350 a month to add DH to my plan. My insurance is completely free but I'm still not paying that insane amount of money when we can get his own plan for a third of that.

  • After college I shared an apartment with a very good friend who is a gay man for 4 years. We always joked that we were husband-and-wife because according to the local laws you are common-law married after living with someone of the opposite sex for 3 years, though I have no idea what that actually meant or if we would have been eligible for any benefits even if we wanted them. But I like to tease that he's my first husband and maybe my FI should be jealous.

    Common law marriage in Canada is defined as two people (same sex or opposite sex) that live together in a marriage like relationship. If you don't present yourself as a couple you aren't common-law married, even if you live together for 3 years. 

    Anniversary
  • KatWAGKatWAG Chicago
    2500 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    member
    CMGragain said:

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    Common-law marriage in the United States can still be contracted in nine states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Utah and Texas) and the District of Columbia. New Hampshire recognizes common-law marriage for purposes of probate only, and Utah recognizes common-law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order.[1]



    Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source of information.
    BabyFruit Ticker
    ashley8918redoryxVulgarGirlDreamergirl8812
  • amelisha said:

    Very interesting discussion! I'm in Canada as well, and both my employer and my boyfriends will allow us to be on each others benefits after 1 yr of living together. I believe in AB to considered common law it is 3 years living together.

    I think that's right as well, although I don't think it's mandatory. I could be wrong though.

    I know to put FI on my health insurance as a common-law spouse I just had to initial something verifying we'd been living together at least six months, and that was it and now he gets my benefits exactly the same as if we were already married. His work benefits are through a different provider though and they want proof that you actually file common-law on your taxes to add me to his, so we're just waiting until we're married to add me to his. My benefits are a little better than his so it doesn't really matter too much to me for our purposes - I just get 100% prescription coverage through mine but he has to pay dispensing fees on his so it's better for him to use mine for his meds.

    Common-law marriage is obviously very different up here from the responses I've been reading and it's pretty interesting, though.

    Agreed, I dont think I've ever heard of it being manditory either. I am looking forward to being on his benefits for massage purposes hehe. His company gives a much higher $ amt they'll pay.
    image
  • amelishaamelisha Canadian Texas
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its First Answer Name Dropper
    member

    After college I shared an apartment with a very good friend who is a gay man for 4 years. We always joked that we were husband-and-wife because according to the local laws you are common-law married after living with someone of the opposite sex for 3 years, though I have no idea what that actually meant or if we would have been eligible for any benefits even if we wanted them. But I like to tease that he's my first husband and maybe my FI should be jealous.

    Common law marriage in Canada is defined as two people (same sex or opposite sex) that live together in a marriage like relationship. If you don't present yourself as a couple you aren't common-law married, even if you live together for 3 years. 
    Yeah, I had a dude roommate for ages and we used to joke about being common-law all the time, but it's not legit, fortunately :) 

    I still tease FI about me being married to both him and our current roommate, because our landlord has been confused about which one of them I'm in a relationship with from day one (because the roomie and I went together without FI to look at the place and meet them originally, I think, and then the misunderstanding went on too long and we can't correct it years later...) Every time we go in to re-sign the lease there's this awkward thing where the landlords are confused and switch their names and can't figure out why FI is sitting too close to me etc. Does that count for the roomie and me "presenting as a couple"? Hahaha.

    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    image
  • kvrunskvruns
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary First Answer
    member
    edited March 2015
    blabla89 said:

    emmaaa said:

    Random addition to the conversation: Even though DH and I are married now, I am not adding him to my work insurance (for a town government) because it is too damn expensive. It is much cheaper to get him a separate plan.

    Same here, because my employer tacks on a fee of $150/month to have a spouse on your plan if they're eligble for a plan through their own employer. Not sure if FI's company does or not.



    plus the cost of going from self-only coverage to employee + spouse or family - so it's really probably $300-400 per month more for you.


    More companies are going to that, either a spousal carveout that says if your spouse is eligible for group insurance through their job they have to go on that plan, no way around it or a spousal surcharge, which is what you described, where it says ok your spouse can stay on but we are going to charge an extra fee for that to happen.


    Edit to fix typo

  • huskypuppy14huskypuppy14 Boston Suburbs
    2500 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    member
    jenna8984 said:

    Like others have said, it's not in most states. But even the ones that do have it, it's kind of known as an outdated blue law type of thing that means nothing. You would never be REQUIRED to file state taxes married, as it sounds like you in Canada are required to. Actually I'm fairly certain that (in US) you have to file your state and federal taxes with the same marital status. So since the federal government doesn't recognize common law and makes you put single, you'd have to claim the same on your state.

    And no, the majority of health insurances will not cover a live-in significant other without being legally married. A few do, like Lolo883 said she was able to, but that's considered outstanding since most do not.

    This isn't true. Prior to DOMA (do I have that right) gay couples whose marriage was recognized in MA for example could file their state taxes as married, but had to file their federal taxes as single.

    I think regardless though, the Federal governement doesn't recognize common law marriages, so you would have to do your federal taxes as single.

    And I know someone in MA who had their domestic partner (not married) on their insurance, but you have to pay taxes on the premium or something like that. It's possible not all insurance companies allow it though.

    .
    image
    image

    image


  • kvruns said:

    blabla89 said:

    emmaaa said:

    Random addition to the conversation: Even though DH and I are married now, I am not adding him to my work insurance (for a town government) because it is too damn expensive. It is much cheaper to get him a separate plan.

    Same here, because my employer tacks on a fee of $150/month to have a spouse on your plan if they're eligble for a plan through their own employer. Not sure if FI's company does or not.



    plus the cost of going from self-only coverage to employee + spouse or family - so it's really probably $300-400 per month more for you.


    More companies are going to that, either a spousal carveout that says if your spouse is eligible for group insurance through their job they have to go on that plan, no way around it or a spousal surcharge, which is what you described, where it says ok your spouse can stay on but we are going to charge an extra fee for that to happen.


    Edit to fix typo

    In their defense though... the company is still normally subsidizing the cost of your spouse's plan. I'd rather pay an extra $15 per month surcharge than pay his entire portion.

    To add my H to mine was the same monthly contribution as I pay for myself - so instead of like $60 per paycheck for me, it's $120 per paycheck for both of us. But my employer picks up something like half of the actual cost for BOTH of us, not just me. So it makes sense for them to be like "hey now, we're already helping you out, so if your spouse COULD get insurance somewhere else, kick in a little bit extra."

    image
    image
  • wandajune6wandajune6 Chicago-ish
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary First Answer
    member
    It depends on the company. My husband's company subsidizes him but not me or The Kid. It's more expensive to have me on his insurance than to buy my own through the exchange- and not considerably better than what I could get at that price. I went on his insurance when we got married only because of the differences in deductibles (his plan has weird rules that work in our favor) and the hopes of a future pregnancy.
    Daisypath Anniversary tickers
  • VulgarGirlVulgarGirl Desert Oasis
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary Name Dropper
    member

    jenna8984 said:

    Like others have said, it's not in most states. But even the ones that do have it, it's kind of known as an outdated blue law type of thing that means nothing. You would never be REQUIRED to file state taxes married, as it sounds like you in Canada are required to. Actually I'm fairly certain that (in US) you have to file your state and federal taxes with the same marital status. So since the federal government doesn't recognize common law and makes you put single, you'd have to claim the same on your state.

    And no, the majority of health insurances will not cover a live-in significant other without being legally married. A few do, like Lolo883 said she was able to, but that's considered outstanding since most do not.

    This isn't true. Prior to DOMA (do I have that right) gay couples whose marriage was recognized in MA for example could file their state taxes as married, but had to file their federal taxes as single.

    .
    This is correct. Also once DOMA (yes that's right, defense of marriage act, the heteros are totally undefended now) was overturned you could file jointly on your federal taxes, but if your state didn't/doesn't allow same sex marriage you still have to file seperatley on your state taxes.
    image
    image

  • blabla89 said:

    It depends on where you live. My state only recognizes common law marriages prior to 1997 and I'm sure some other states don't recognize them at all. Some employers offer domestic partner benefits for unmarried couples who live together, but not all.

    I'm really curious about how this works in Canada, though. What if you have a child with someone you want nothing to do with? Are you still considered their common law spouse, or can that relationship be dissolved?

    In Manitoba it goes like this:

    If you live together for 3 consecutive years in a conjugal relationship, you are considered common-law. You must file taxes as such, that kind of thing. If you have a baby with someone and move in together, you are automatically common-law, and don't have to wait the 3 years. OR you can "register" your common-law relationship, and again skip the 3 year wait.

    Lets say you have a child with someone and are living together, thus are in a common-law relationship and are filing taxes as such. If the relationship ends, you move out, it takes 3 years to dissolve a common-law relationship.  No one really follows that rule though. Most people move out and consider themselves single again.

    ETA: Typos.

    It's like this Canada wide. It's federal legislation that is applied across the provinces and teritorries.
    image
2»
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards