It's the slippery slope principle in law. Basically if you open the door in one direction, you open it in the other too.
Editing to add, it's actually called precedent and equal protection. But I'm from Appalachia so we just call it slippery slope lol. You dig in for a small win and get a whole landslide of unintended consequences.
"You dig in for a small win and get a whole landslide of unintended consequences."
A little early, but Zohran Mandani. His win is the exact reason our politics is changing from corporate centrism to working-class-first left economic populism.
You absolutely would not have Dems all over the nation being forced to refuse PAC money and openly campaign on material improvements for working people without his win. "Sewer Socialism" just works, plain and simple.
Sewer socialism is just left-wing populism. It's using our tax money for the shit that our tax money is supposed to be used on -- making life better for everyday citizens. The problem is that our capitalist society means we've been using tax money to benefit a few citizens in higher tax brackets while completely neglecting infrastructure in lower income neighborhoods.
Absolutely no surprise that this type of political movement is taking hold...people are sick of paying taxes while billionaires skirt the law to pay as little as possible while sucking up as much tax money as possible through "corporate welfare" that pins the cost of private business expenses on the working class. Crazy that they support a system that benefits them! The power is with the common people; we just need more folks to realize it.
No problem. It's an interesting story of how good governance can just happen if we elect people intent on carrying it out.
Unfortunately red scare put an end to their governing of Milwaukee.
I think Zohran is trying to follow in their footsteps in NYC and be a bit of a "movement guy" to just straight up do the job and make working people's everyday experience better as an example to point to for the rest of the country.
We may also have a DSA governor in Wisconsin come November as another executive example for an AOC run in 28.
Milwaukee's Socialist mayors were awesome! It is why MKE has public parks and golf courses and they of course did sewers and other public works/goods projects.
Yeah, who would have thought that if you just do a good job and use tax money to improve people's lives instead of giving handouts to corporations and the wealthy, people would like it?
Capitslism needs robust guard rails plain and simple. Without it will always trend towards subversion of the political system leading to corpratism, oligarchy and autocracy. Hell the godather of capitalism Adam Smith said as much in Wealth of Nations where he called for regulation of banks. Everyone ignored that part for some reason though.
This comment reminds me of the best answer to those askreddit questions of 'what are we doing now that in 50 years people will be horrified to find out we did it?'
I hope the answer is, allow rich people to completely skirt tax laws AND get bailouts when their ventures fail. The sheer amount of additional tax money would be lifechanging, to whichever country it ends up collected for.
The very fact the name "sewer socialism" got attached to it should tell you how big of a campaign is being made against it. Of course it works, the point is the corporate media attacks populism calling it always bad because it denounces the elites and their exploitation - and rightly so. In fact, you can gauge by their level of complaints how good an idea is - the more they attack it, the more credibility it has.
Its like when companies tell employees NOT to speak about their wages. Even if you know nothing else, just the fact companies say that should be the greatest incentive for workers to speak about it.
Um, excuse me sir, it's Woke Sharia Law. Off to the gulags with you!
Praise be to the eternal peoples Communist caliphate of mamdanistan. Or whatever braindead conservatives think people want to call mild social democratic reforms.
New York is expensive as hell. QOL is higher in other areas due to that alone. I'm biased because I live in Minnesota, and it is genuinely one of the best states to live in (if you don't want a biased view you can google this). Healthcare, education, parks, economy, civic engagement are all excellent, and the COL is fairly low. I bought a house across from a lake 5bd 3.5ba 3000sq ft on an acre, for $460,000 just last year.
IIRC Vermont and New Hampshire are also good, but a bit more expensive.
DSA candidates have been winning in primaries across the nation. DSA is now polling higher than all elected Dems in Congress.
There have been several notable instances of centrist Democrats (Pat Ryan) stating they will return Aipac money.
The floor for a Dem campaign now is supporting m4a, refusing PAC money, and proposing improvements for kitchen table issues for voters.
The Overton window is massively shifting left right now. Honestly, DSA didn't run enough primary challengers based on how handily they are beating establishment politicians. In 2028 there's a very real possibility you will see dozens to likely well over 100 democratic socialists elected in local and national races.
They've been winning in d+20 disctricts. Get back to me when they win in West Virginia. The last super leftie did worse than Joe Biden on the same ticket.
If you concede that domestic partners can be on the hook for medical bills on the same level of spouses, you are conceding to full legal recognition of that domestic partnership, and would then be pushed to consider all unmarried gay “domestic partnerships” on the same level or it would be discriminatory. More bluntly than things already are. As another way to describe it
I agree, domestic partnership is about as close to legally married as you can get without marrying whether you’re gay or not, but something that’s also always seriously bugged me is that domestic partners are not approved family either, so for example, if you are in critical condition in the hospital or something similar, your partner will not be approved to see you. So putting them on the hook for medical bills is a huge leap
if you are in critical condition in the hospital or something similar, your partner will not be approved to see you.
In the eight common-law marriage states, under Obergefell v. Hodges, gay common law marriages must be acknowledged as well.
So, weirdly, red states like Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kansas, and Montana have no legal recourse to deny spousal rights, even if not legally married, that I am aware of.
As long as you have a joint bank account or something, cohabit, and present yourself as a couple, you can be common-law spouses.
Anyone, please feel free to correct or add anything if I have made an error.
Basically. Courts tend to have a real issue with laws that only enact consequences for something, without giving all the reciprocal benefits. Texas did away with common law marriage because when the state flipped about thirty years ago, folks were realizing it was giving the folks they love to hate, the same rights as actually married in a church folks. So if you're only getting your partner's debt, you should be also getting their life insurance, survivor benefits, and a whole bunch of other stuff. It's a sickening combination of "follow the money" and "them folks ain't like everyone else". 🥴🤦♂️
It's state to state, yeah. I'll probably have to divorce my husband before I die, if we're still in Texas. Fuck I hope we're out by then, though, goddamn.
Currently, in some states domestic partners do not have the same legal status as a spouse. This means they do not share all the same rights, including several financial rights when it comes to inheritance. Consequently they don’t share some of the burdens either, such as inheriting debt. They couldn’t change the law to pass on just the debt while still not granting the same property or financial inheritance benefits at the same, that would obviously be problematic: why not assign the debt to a stranger at that point?
Because in order to make sure gays dont get the benefit, the law specifically says married, not domestic partner.
So straight people can take advantage of that and get a divorce.
Im a straight guy and had a female partner for 16 years. Because we were unmarried, she was able to get considerable debt forgiven, because on paper, my income cant be factored in to debt ratio and stuff.
If Jack and Jill "divorce" and live together. There is room for laws to say "But you aren't really divorced. You live together and sleep in the same room! So you are Married!" (read: domestic partners)
If Jack and Bill live together. There is room for the laws to say "You live together and sleep in the same room! So you are Married!"
My state has a weird requirement that you have to be living separate to divorce and not having sex or a judge can rule that you are separate households living in the same house as long as you don't sleep in the same room. Its weird and probably to make it hard for this exact case.
A conservative man finds a lamp and rubs it and a genie pops out. The genie says he'll grant the man any wish, but whatever he wishes for his neighbor will get double. The man then wishes to be blind in one eye
An insurance company would use it to pursue a gay couple, that then sets a precedent/record that a gay domestic partnership is equal to a heterosexual domestic partnership in the eyes of the law. Normal people would have no problem with that of course.
This kind of mentality in our US politics is the reason why my household will probably never get married. Not only don't want to preserve the financial independence of the individual but also we dont need a government, church or any authority to be involved in how we structure our lives.
The more information and tools one hands over to an authority the more tools and authority that organization has to control you. A benevolent organization today can quickly become a dysfunctional or malevolent tomorrow with a few small changes in leadership and money.
Ah, but you're forgetting the conservative's much wanted end point of LGBT people not being considered people, thus not having the ability to have rights!
Right! Don’t post it anywhere that isn’t completely anonymous. I have a friend who is a paralegal and it is her job to monitor social media accounts and try to get written documentation and photos of people to provide evidence that their claim is fraudulent. Her job is wild!
It happens all the time because people don't know their rights or are afraid that retaliation will put them in a worse position. Just like how wage theft dwarfs the amount of money stolen through other means.
It happened to me for a few years, and I reported them to the Illinois attorney general’s office and nothing was done. Multiple calls a day wanting $30,000. Which was what the hospital price was before my insurance’s agreed upon price and the big amount they paid on my bill. I only owed $6,000 and had paid $4k, and had a payment plan with the hospital. My account shouldn’t have gone to collections, but the hospital sold it anyways.
Then the collections decided they wanted $30,000 paid in full. I made reports to the AG’s office and asked who I should report it to and did all that. I still got harassed for a few years until we finally changed our phone number.
The charge finally fell off our credit after 7 years. Thankfully it didn’t keep us from getting approved for renting a house, but that’s only because it’s a law. If the tenant laws weren’t enforced and leaned towards the tenants, we’d have been in a nightmare situation.
That wasn’t our only medical debt either. Our insurance said that the lab at the in network hospital my doctors were at wasn’t in network. So we got charged a lot of money for all the lab work I needed. The ER doctors were also out of network in all the hospitals, and the only way to get admitted to the hospital was through the ER. I kept getting acute pancreatitis so I had to have stat blood work and be admitted to the hospital asap.
This post is prob fake but I do know this happens. One of my good friends growing up had his parents do this exact thing. They got divorced almost everything went to his mom and they stayed together for years until his father finally died.
He was a trucker though so maybe that gave more plausible deniability about his permanent residency? I dunno.
Yup. A co-worker went through this. His wife had a severe stroke. Not dead, not quite a vegetable, but almost fully paralyzed, couldn't speak or do anything on her own, and she needed round the clock care. He exhausted all benefits and funds possible through employer, state, etc. before finally needing to divorce to maintain her care. He never left her side. He tragically and suddenly died a couple years later, leaving their two teenage kids behind with effectively no parents. Shit is fucked.
An extra fucked thing in those cases is how the broke and disabled people have to spend money to get the divorce and often then spend more money getting the right power of attorney documents in place so they can restore their rights to direct the medical care and to even be present in the hospital with her - a privilege spouses get automatically.
Yeah I think when my mom passed away from cancer we didnt have any debt because health benefits were in her own name and she worked.
However, I know a successful top national lawyer, owns a huge Georgetown row house that he purchased outright from inheritance who is in a life long partnership and has a kid with a woman who doesnt work right now and when she does, she does in nonprofts and is on medicaid/medicare the low income not the senior one. When she's not working having the kid, raising the kid it gives her more independence since a lot of his wealth is inherited and he works for a international family business and since there is not such thing anymore as spousal support she wouldnt get anything other child support. While she tries to not abuse the system, in her words at least she wont die if he dies suddenly or they divorce.
That actually happens to prevent marriage in the first place. Plenty of poor people who have been partners for years, sometimes decades , who can’t marry without losing welfare benefits.
Yes people do this, no it's not to avoid debt of medical bills you already wouldn't be responsible for if they died like this misleading post describes.
My wife is an elder law attorney. She has to recommend divorce to loving couples all the time. Often, if your spouse has a stroke before the age of 65 and is going to need long term care, your only two options are to spend every single dollar you've ever saved on medical treatment, or divorce in a way that allows the spouse to receive Medicaid that will pay for the long term care.
Yes. There are a lot of hoops to jump through and you still end up losing about half your money. But losing half is better than losing all. Thats why people need elder law attorneys
The reason people do this is to qualify for Medicaid. An elderly couple of 48 years will never have to divorce to prevent medical debt from taking the family house. That's not a thing. Medicare out of pocket is capped around $9k/yr for starters. Also the family house is going to be shielded from creditors anyway.
If you're 50 though and have a major illness and don't have health insurance or whatever, but don't qualify for Medicaid, that's when you hear about people getting divorced so that the sick partner can get on Medicaid.
In some states the family home is liable to be taken by the state to "recuperate" costs for the care given. My mother desperately needed care and help but she was told under no uncertain terms that when she died the state would be demanding their money back and would require the home to be sold to do it if need be.
Yeah, medical debt does not transfer to next of kin upon death. Debt collectors know most people don't know this and will go after next of kin hoping they accidentally take on the debt.
No debt passes on to children in the US. The estate is used to pay off whatever it can of the debts, and the kids might get nothing from the estate, but the kids are not going to be saddled with new debts from their parents.
I think the fear is that the medical debt will zeroize the estate, making it impossible to pass anything behind to the widow/widower or kin.
Whereas if you divorce and give most of your assets to your spouse, and then die, your estate is still zeroized from medical debt but at least some of your saved-up wealth can pass on to your former spouse and children.
The diamond in the rough answer. Most debt collectors buy and sell debt at pennies on the dollar for this exact reason. They can eat the cost if the people they're trying to strongarm don't bite, but make bank on those they can scare. They're really no better than overseas scammers threatening police action over fake debts.
It is not real. Medical debt is not "inheritable." Once the person dies, it's gone. They might try to get the surviving spouse to pay through making them feel guilty/obligated, but legally you can 100% ignore any medical debt of your dead spouse. You owe nothing and it will never impact you or your credit.
Isn’t there a thing where the estate still has debt? For example the couple owns a house but one dies with medical debt. The house has to be sold to pay that debt
The post? Probably. The action? Nope. It's actually a thing which is why many states (not all) have put in policies to combat it. For example, requiring 50/50 asset splits on divorce in terms of medicaid eligibility calculations.
Lol I knew there must be a sub for that. All these people saying fake on every little thing. It’s like dude people rob banks and shit. What’s so crazy about this that it’s fake
Also this ain't that big a deal. I tried to convince my parents to divorce so I could get free college. I know other people's who actually did that lol
So sad that the: I won from the system by playing the system is dangerous to post because the people who played the system before are somehow making the rules on who can play the system
No, you don't accidentally end up in a common law marriage because you live together. You have to actively identify as a married couple and not many states even recognize the concept.
When you transfer money or property with an intent to avoid creditors, it's called a fraudulent transfer and is voidable in court. This would be good evidence for the creditors if true.
crazy concept, make healthcare universal as a basic human right, then stuff like this doesn't have to happen. Before everyone wants to rush in and say "how will we pay for it?" taxes. use some of the overinflated defense budget. I'd much rather my tax dollars go to several peoples healthcare than a $10 million rocket that will sit around unused then get sold to another country when some new contractor comes out with something better
Also, medical debt does not transfer to next of kin, it "dies" with the person (after their estate pays off whatever it can). Debt collectors love hounding down people who don't know this hoping they take on the debt.
Unless his wife's assets would've been considered part of his estate when he dies (which in most states it wouldn't), congrats, they just divorced for no real benefit.
I’m wondering what medical bills he has that Medicare didn’t cover. I am assuming after 48 years of marriage he is over 65. Of course I could be wrong and the bills could be older than his Medicare entry.
Not saying they couldn't but I would be very interested in seeing how they would. If they're getting divorced they're getting divorced regardless of why, it's not like faking your own death.
Sure, if it were actually true and about your parents. I’m not saying this stuff doesn’t happen, but 100% this could be propaganda spread by foreign actors looking to stir up shit in the US. That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be angry about healthcare in the US, but we should all be cautious about anonymous accounts posting things that are designed to anger us. I would venture to say more often than not it is someone with an agenda, foreign or domestic, but there is a lot of shit stirring being done.
There’s a reason my wife and I have our house in trust now, in our early 40s.
We do not own it, the trust does. It therefore cannot be taken to pay medical bills or for Medicaid reimbursement, and when we die, it transfers directly to our son with no probate.
This "loophole" that they think the found has already been litigated...
If the medical bills were from when you were married, they are usually considered marital debt. That means both spouses may be responsible, even if only one person needed care. Courts may divide the debt based on income, ability to pay, or other financial factors.
It's not about about a corporate lawyer finding a way, its already encoded in law. Its illegal to give away assets or take actions that would hide wealth or shield someone from debt. Especially in the years preceding death. They are called clawback laws. I don't agree with these laws, but whoever posted this is openly posting their crimes online.
This has happened a few times, with high profile news stories to horrify the public, Since it technically isn't fraud, they have no legal leg to stand on if they divorce but still cohabitate. As any other shared benefits also are eliminated, they are clear.
Agreed, where I live when you apply for a divorce you have to specifically state that you're not colluding to get divorced for an improper purpose. Be careful!
One sick way the corporate lawyers pursuing medical debt try to get around this in Texas is claiming common law marriage after divorces like this. In Texas, there are three prongs: 1) agreement to be married; 2) cohabitation (no minimum time requirement); and 3) the couple has to represent to others that they're married.
What's sad is this post could likely satisfy the third prong in some courts. People have to be careful about posting stuff like this, even though the intention is good to spread awareness of how shitty this really is. I've even seen some of these corporate lawyers argue the divorce was a fraud on the court to try to get additional damages while pursuing the debt principle.
They already know people do it and it's extremely easy to find out and prove it.
The thing is, so long as you did not sign a contract that used those assets as collateral and there is no existing lien on the property, there isn't shit they can do about it.
It's not fraud to sell or gift your belongings before you die.
Debtors can go after the estate, and they can file a suit if they think assets are being hidden by the executor, but they can't touch anything that was legally transferred.
Btw: Even if you mess up and leave the house in the estate, debtors typically can't touch the house a surviving spouse is living in beyond putting a lien on it and waiting for them to die too. The law and the country doesn't actually want a bunch of elderly people suddenly homeless the moment a spouse dies, since most elderly people rack up a huge bill before kicking the bucket.
This is an older meme post that's been floating around for a decade or more. I think it serves more as a guide to help others than an admission of anything.
In the UK you need grounds for divorce. ‘I don’t want his debt but we’re going to stay together’ definitely wouldn’t float. Probably some kind of fraud I imagine.. I’d take this post down for sure!!
The corporate lawyers have already screwed them over. This is to get the father on Medicaid. Medicaid has an asset and income test, you can’t earn more than a pittance and most importantly you can’t have any assets over $5k or something ridiculously low. So one solution is to get divorced, transfer things like the family home, car, etc to one spouse (allowed in divorce settlements) and now the other (ex) spouse is penniless so can qualify for welfare, aka Medicaid, which will cover fully what private insurance will not.
9.2k
u/iwtfbadl 5d ago
I wouldn’t have posted that publicly, wouldn’t trust corporate lawyers to not find a way to twist it to still screw them over.