Hospital bills vs divorce

[Suzy999]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

I have a life threatening disease and no health insurance. My husband and I have been married 14 months.
He makes too much money, according to the government, for me to get financial assistance like medicaid to pay for my treatment. We make enough money to live on and pay our household bills but we are paycheck to paycheck people.
If we get a divorce will that excuse him from the financial aspect of my illness? The hospital has me on self-pay and there is no way we can afford it. I need government help.

Will this work?

 

[seniorjudge]

You need to speak with a divorce attorney about this.

In most states, a spouse is liable for the other spouse's necessaries (including for instance food, clothing, shelter, medical care).

I suspect that most courts would not recognize that a divorce for this reason would get your husband off the hook.

So, go hire that lawyer to find out for sure.

 

[Gracie3787]

There might be another way to get help, depending on what your illness is. There is an organization for virtually every disease known to man. try locating the one that covers your illness and see what help they can give.

 

[mistoffolees]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

I have a life threatening disease and no health insurance. My husband and I have been married 14 months.
He makes too much money, according to the government, for me to get financial assistance like medicaid to pay for my treatment. We make enough money to live on and pay our household bills but we are paycheck to paycheck people.
If we get a divorce will that excuse him from the financial aspect of my illness? The hospital has me on self-pay and there is no way we can afford it. I need government help.

Will this work?

It sounds as if you're talking about a sham divorce - where you are divorcing only to get government money. If that's not the case, I apologize for mis-reading it. If it IS the case, don't do it. It's a crime.

 

[Ohiogal]

It sounds as if you're talking about a sham divorce - where you are divorcing only to get government money. If that's not the case, I apologize for mis-reading it. If it IS the case, don't do it. It's a crime.

It is NOT a sham divorce. Many people divorce due to reasons such as the one involved here. There is NOTHING sham about it. They are divorced. Which means they lose several rights affiliated with marriage when they get a divorce.

 

[mistoffolees]

It is NOT a sham divorce. Many people divorce due to reasons such as the one involved here. There is NOTHING sham about it. They are divorced. Which means they lose several rights affiliated with marriage when they get a divorce.

If they truly divorce and go their separate ways, then there is obviously no issue. However, if they divorce and then continue living as a married couple (which is what I considered a sham divorce), then they could be liable for fraud.

 

[Ohiogal]

If they truly divorce and go their separate ways, then there is obviously no issue. However, if they divorce and then continue living as a married couple (which is what I considered a sham divorce), then they could be liable for fraud.

Cite the statute? Because they aren't. They are working within the framework that the government allows. It may be exploiting a loophole but the government could patch said loophole.

 

[mistoffolees]

Cite the statute? Because they aren't. They are working within the framework that the government allows. It may be exploiting a loophole but the government could patch said loophole.

This type of thing is prosecuted all the time by insurance companies as insurance fraud. Similarly, the government goes after people who hide their money and then fall back on social security to pay their long term care expenses.

This fraud would be essentially the same as giving your assets to the kids and then asking the government to pay for a nursing home - and the government stops it all the time.

 

[tranquility]

This fraud would be essentially the same as giving your assets to the kids and then asking the government to pay for a nursing home - and the government stops it all the time.

No it wouldn't be. Not in any sense at all. I could go through a list as to many of the differences, but let's start with the fact it's not fraud. (Unless you lie about having had the assets.) It's just that the assets within the lookback are vulnerable.

This type of thing is prosecuted all the time by insurance companies as insurance fraud.

How does claiming you're single work out to insurance fraud? Two people get a valid divorce but continue to live together claiming they're single. Maybe even in one room. What possible insurance fraud could there be?

Similarly, the government goes after people who hide their money and then fall back on social security to pay their long term care expenses.

This is just silly. Let's start from the beginning. Why do the people want to be divorced?

1. Because one does not want the other responsible for the medical bills. Clearly the concept of being responsible is based on the validity of marriage, as long as the divorce is real, the statutes and common law (as long as the supposed state is not one which has common law marriages, which would complicate things) would not impute the debts of the one to the other who she is sleeping with.

2. Because the statue reduces money according to law. The law on ability to pay in some parts of government aid is all adults in the household and on others spouse and on others (like scholarships) includes parents-even if not in the same house. For each instance you need to look at the statute.

While I have not looked it up and posted the previous based on simple logic of what I do know, if we do look it up, I bet Ohiogal will be right as to what the statute says.

 

[LdiJ]

No it wouldn't be. Not in any sense at all. I could go through a list as to many of the differences, but let's start with the fact it's not fraud. (Unless you lie about having had the assets.) It's just that the assets within the lookback are vulnerable.

How does claiming you're single work out to insurance fraud? Two people get a valid divorce but continue to live together claiming they're single. Maybe even in one room. What possible insurance fraud could there be?

This is just silly. Let's start from the beginning. Why do the people want to be divorced?

1. Because one does not want the other responsible for the medical bills. Clearly the concept of being responsible is based on the validity of marriage, as long as the divorce is real, the statutes and common law (as long as the supposed state is not one which has common law marriages, which would complicate things) would not impute the debts of the one to the other who she is sleeping with.

2. Because the statue reduces money according to law. The law on ability to pay in some parts of government aid is all adults in the household and on others spouse and on others (like scholarships) includes parents-even if not in the same house. For each instance you need to look at the statute.

While I have not looked it up and posted the previous based on simple logic of what I do know, if we do look it up, I bet Ohiogal will be right as to what the statute says.

I totally agree with both Tranq and Ohiogal on this one.

 

[mistoffolees]

I totally agree with both Tranq and Ohiogal on this one.

See for example:
Tranfer of Assets to Get Medicaid becomes a Crime
Transferring assets to become eligible for Medicare is a felony.

If they get divorced and stay in the same household, acting as if they are married, but transfer assets to the healthy ex-spouse, that would seem to violate this law. It's certainly close enough to support my claim that it could be fraudulent.

Add to that several other items:
1. Texas offers no-fault divorce, but states: "The marriage has become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities that destroys the legitimate ends of the marital relationship and prevents any reasonable expectation of reconciliation.". If they continue to live together, they are committing perjury if they claim the marriage is broken beyond any hope of reconciliation.
2. Since the OP became sick during the marriage, the stbx could be liable for some or all of the medical expenses - based on typical divorce conditions - and Medicare could come back on him for the expenses.

Aside from the questionable ethics which are not the issue here, obtaining a divorce solely to obtain Medicare while continuing to act as a married couple appears to be illegal per the reference above.

They need to consult a very good attorney familiar with the above Federal law.

 

[mistoffolees]

How does claiming you're single work out to insurance fraud? Two people get a valid divorce but continue to live together claiming they're single. Maybe even in one room. What possible insurance fraud could there be?

See above. Transferring assets (which is one of the things that happens in a divorce) solely to obtain Medicare coverage is a felony.

If they continue to live together as man and wife and transfer the assets in such a way that she can obtain Medicare, it seems to fall under the above law.

 

[Ohiogal]

See above. Transferring assets (which is one of the things that happens in a divorce) solely to obtain Medicare coverage is a felony.

If they continue to live together as man and wife and transfer the assets in such a way that she can obtain Medicare, it seems to fall under the above law.

IF there are assets. There may be NO assets that she would be transferring and as a short term marriage she would not necessarily be able to have any assets from the marriage. Which means her assets. If the court rules that it is an equitable split/division of property when they grant the divorce then that takes away the transfer of assets issue -- especially since it is NOT SOLELY to obtain medicare (it would actually be medicaid which is on a state level). It is NOT a felony due to the fact that they are getting a legitimate divorce. And it can be that the marriage is rife with discord due to the medical bills. It happens all the time. People get divorce due to this quite a bit actually.

And quite frankly if we had socialized medicine in this country there would NOT be an issue of people having to divorce due to medical costs.

 

[tranquility]

You point to a very old article which is written to the general public. You are aware, aren't you, there is an entire industry (called elder care law) which deals with such situations, right? How to gift your assets to qualify for governmental benefits as well as other things. If you want to suppose, great. More power to you. Let me know when you want to play with the grownups.

At the big table, I'll still go with Ohiogal.

Info edit:
To Ohiogal, if we had socialized medicine right now, while I wouldn't be worrying so much about the possibility of going bankrupt, I am certain my wife would be dead. Cost/benefit can be a cold calculation.

 

[mistoffolees]

You point to a very old article which is written to the general public. You are aware, aren't you, there is an entire industry (called elder care law) which deals with such situations, right? How to gift your assets to qualify for governmental benefits as well as other things. If you want to suppose, great. More power to you. Let me know when you want to play with the grownups. .

1. 'a very old article' citing a 1996 law? If this is so old, you should be able to show that it the law has been repealed. You can't? Too bad.

2. Yes, there are entire industries devoted to breaking all sorts of laws. Look at how many billions are spent to evade (and sometimes break) tax laws. Your implication that laws don't exist simply because people sometimes break them is inane. Furthermore, it does nothing to negate the fact that I was right - it IS illegal.

If 'playing with the grownups' means ignoring the citation I gave you that completely supported my position, then I don't want to have any part of it. Fortunately, most of the world doesn't buy your silly definition that 'playing with the grownups' means ignoring the facts in front of your face.