Need a pension? Say, `I do' (Young gals wed old guys, soak SS for a lifetime)

LA Times ^ | April 26, 2006 | Barbara Garson

[twigs]

You're right. Also, this says that the 20's man was marrying the 92 year-old for her health insurance. I would think that would be medicare and would be hers alone. Am I wrong?

[Kenton]

All I can say, Barbara, is if this is your idea of a retirement plan, your ass is doomed. Pension benefits and social security for someone who retired 25 or 30 years ago won't even pay for cat food by the time you're helpless and in your dotage.

And you got a really nasty bunch of Gen-Xer's who are gonna do everything they can to take that social security away from you when they outnumber boomers.

Hoped ya saved a lot of money when you were unemployed. Better start digging out all those vintage tie-dyed t-shirts and start peddling them on E-Bay...

[cyclotic]

Last I heard, there was still one Civil War (War of the rebellion) wife alive. THey thought the last one dies and someone else stepped forward last year.

[Traveling_Free]

Nope - you're right

No one is eligible for survivor's benefits including medicare unless they are already eligible for Social Security either because they had reached retirement age or became disabled. Survivor's benefits - collecting off a deceased spouse's SS record as a widow or widower - only come into effect if the payment amount is more then you would normally receive on your own SS record.

Why did everybody suddenly decide to believe the LA Times?

LOL

[Hydroshock]

I was just mentioning the ones the VA was paying out on.

[gogeo]

Here's a modest proposal: Match boomers with New Dealers and the benefits flow.

Wow...is this the financial equivalent of a perpetual motion machine, or just another con, a way to stick it to the Man?

[cyclotic]

Yea, I think she's getting a pension. I know the one who died last year was still getting one.

[twigs]

So this 20-year-old man has a 92-year-old wife and no health insurance?

[tdewey10]

I think the point of this article (and I would assume the play) is to make fun of traditional marriage.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh, no. This is not satire at all. Garson goes on talk shows to chortle about how many's the time she's served as May-December matchmaker so as to soak the pensions and Social Security for a lifetime.

And isn't this the whole point of Domestic Partneships, Civil Unions for gays and all the rest? To get "partners" into health plans, pensions, etc.?

Very few gays are into lifelong quasi-marital fidelity. But benefits! Benefits! B-e-n-e-f-i-t-s ! !

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for the details. Actually, Garson's example #1 was a 1960's drop-outs who opted to be a full-time volunteer/activist, so that would make the gal in her 50's. So I guess that would be an "August-December" marriage.

Her other example was a 20-year-old "marrying" a nonagenarian, not for SS but for health insurance coverage. That works.

I wonder if there's a law against soliciting for or cooperating in this sort of fraud...

[Traveling_Free]

twigs wrote:
So this 20-year-old man has a 92-year-old wife and no health insurance?


When the 92-year-old wife of a 20-year-old-man dies, HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ANY SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS period.

No medicare - no monthly check.

When he retires (62) or becomes disabled ( and is over 50), if the SS payment on his wife's record would be more than the payment on his SS record then he could receive her benefits as a widower instead of his own. Either way he would then become eligble for medicare.

But until he's old or disabled he gets nada!!

The whole premise of her article is wrong.

LA Times LOL

[ClearCase_guy]

Polygamy is the way to go! And incest! And homosexulity!

Grandpa can marry all of his grand-daughters and grand-sons and let them each receive survivor benefits.

Then there's the family dog, too ...

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...this says that the 20's man was marrying the 92 year-old for her health insurance. I would think that would be medicare and would be hers alone. Am I wrong?

Could be private insurance with family (dependent) coverage, right?

[Tokra]

I once read in the mid 1980's that from May/December marriages that at teh time the VA was still paying pensions and benefits on about 90 to 100 Civil War (War of Northern AgressionSouthern Secession) veterans widows.

[fso301]

the VA was still paying pensions and benefits on about 90 to 100 Civil War (War of Northern Agression) veterans widows.

And still paying although to a much smaller group.

[Question_Assumptions]

Lefties always want to use someone else's money because they don't know how to earn and manage their own. They are as useful as pet rocks. Hmmm. Actually the pet rock is more useful because it does less damage to the economy.

[kinghorse]

I dunno, sounds like a nice old age fringe. Now where did I put my last social security statement? I need to be talking it up with the ladies :).

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think in the 20 - 90 matchup she's talking about a private insurer.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Well, crap.

People wonder why health care costs are soaring...this kind of BS doesn't help. These people lobby for benefits, get them, and then abuse them...that's a real smart plan. If this gets too commonplace, companies are likely to change their benefit policies, perhaps going to far as to cut them. The real losers will be the people who did NOT abuse their benefits and then loose them because of some wise guys trying to scam the system. Then people will complain about how they have no benefits and the almighty government will step in to fix all the problems. It's a downward sprial.

However, I don't think that doomsday scenario is really all that likely. Most companies will probably just start imposing new rules, like you must be married to the person for a certain length of time before retirement.

On a different note, I must take issue with your claim that "Very few gays are into lifelong quasi-marital fidelity." I have a couple gay people in my family, and both have been in relationships that have lasted over 25 years (over 35 for one couple). I personally think marriage should not be any business of the state, only of religious institutions, and any two individuals should be able to enter a legal contract that is equivalent to marriage (i.e. a civil union).

But that's not really relevant here. Any couple, gay or straight, that is in a committed relationship should be eligible for benefits, and many companies have those sorts of policies. The concern is people scamming them by getting married to people they are not in domestic relationships with.