Advice and Support from Thousands of Users Just Like You

Reply
Page 2 of 14 1 2 3 4 12 Last »
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
timeless2 timeless2 is offline
timeless2's Avatar

timeless2 wants to know which hat to wear next?

Virtuoso

Join Date: Dec 2008

Posts: 3,359

See profile

'Some people' really do get riled up.
Thanks
- November 6th, 2009, 11:22 am
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#11   Reply With Quote
sabete2002 sabete2002 is offline
sabete2002's Avatar

sabete2002 I was modded???!!!!

Veteran

Join Date: Jun 2008

Posts: 2,191

See profile

Great post, Saul. Thanks.
- November 6th, 2009, 01:46 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#12   Reply With Quote
curious_girl curious_girl is offline
curious_girl's Avatar

curious_girl needs prayers for her son =(

Virtuoso

Join Date: Oct 2008

Posts: 3,356

See profile

Once again,Saul, you said it all.
- November 6th, 2009, 01:50 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#13   Reply With Quote
D_Lion D_Lion is offline
D_Lion's Avatar

D_Lion - Ladies want to wring my neck - you have been warned!

Sage

Join Date: Aug 2008

Posts: 11,005

See profile

nightling wrote :
It takes two people to bring a child into the world, and those two people must BOTH pick up the check.

Not always - as Saul alluded to the other day.

In fact, I read that men are legally considered to be a father of any child born during a marriage, regardless of who the actual father is, and forced to pay (extreme) amounts to women who produced illegitimate children.

These laws, in existence since prior to DNA, are clearly unjust and should have been stricken immediately once definitive establishment of heredity became possible.

Further, legal expense associated with such fraudulent claims for "child support" ought be charged back to the woman (and, ethically, criminal sanction for fraud imposed, when evidence warrants.)
- November 6th, 2009, 02:51 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#14   Reply With Quote
LizziePooh LizziePooh is offline
LizziePooh's Avatar

LizziePooh has decided to put her luck to the test.

Virtuoso

Join Date: May 2008

Posts: 4,308

See profile

Now that everyone is getting along, maybe I should not stir up the nest but here goes...

This is just an observation I have made over the years - take it as you may...

I work in the health industry. There is a federal mandate that child support agencies may send a Qualified Medical Child Support Order (QMSCO) to an employer. These QMCSOs are issued to an employer giving the employer the authority to add a child unto a health plan and take any necessary deductions out of an employee's paycheck without authorization from the employee. These are issued when an employee has a court order to provide health coverage for their child but they fail to do so.

So these QMCSOs are issued because "deadbeat" parents are not fulfilling their obligation as issued by the court.

Here is the part that is just an observation so take it how you may...

I have seen hundreds of these QMSCOs and out of all them, only one has been issued on a female employee.

With that, you can draw a few conclusions and I am not really sure how accurate they are.

Conclusion one - Men are more often responsible to cover their children under their health plans.

Conclusion two - Men more often shirk their responsibility of covering their children under their health plans.

Conclusion three - In my observation, QMSCOs are more likely issued on people making a lower wage than average and typically these employees have been male due to the industry/work (at least for the plans I administer) and that is why there seems to be a slant towards men appearing as "deadbeat" parents.

(Modified - My money is on a combination of conclusion one and conclusion three.)
Last edited by LizziePooh; November 6th, 2009 at 02:58 pm.
- November 6th, 2009, 02:54 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#15   Reply With Quote

ADVERTISEMENT

Can_I_just_be_Jo Can_I_just_be_Jo is offline
Can_I_just_be_Jo's Avatar

Can_I_just_be_Jo Blissfully happy!

Enthusiast

Join Date: Oct 2009

Posts: 621

See profile

D_Lion wrote :
Not always - as Saul alluded to the other day.

In fact, I read that men are legally considered to be a father of any child born during a marriage, regardless of who the actual father is, and forced to pay (extreme) amounts to women who produced illegitimate children.

These laws, in existence since prior to DNA, are clearly unjust and should have been stricken immediately once definitive establishment of heredity became possible.

Further, legal expense associated with such fraudulent claims for "child support" ought be charged back to the woman (and, ethically, criminal sanction for fraud imposed, when evidence warrants.)
I have heard of this as well. It isn't right, the laws need to change, still I don't believe this happens very often.

We had a case here where the woman didn't want support from the father so went on welfare instead. Government found out who the father was and she was faced with pay us back or he would. She didn't get very far with the argument it should be her choice to go after the father. They argued yes it is your choice if you want to pay the childs expenses yourself. Apparently the government doesn't like to pay for another man's child either. They just have the muscle to do something.
- November 6th, 2009, 03:09 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#16   Reply With Quote
saulgoode saulgoode is offline
saulgoode's Avatar

Unregistered

Join Date: Oct 2008

Posts: 1,310

See profile

LizziePooh wrote :
Now that everyone is getting along, maybe I should not stir up the nest but here goes...

This is just an observation I have made over the years - take it as you may...

I work in the health industry. There is a federal mandate that child support agencies may send a Qualified Medical Child Support Order (QMSCO) to an employer. These QMCSOs are issued to an employer giving the employer the authority to add a child unto a health plan and take any necessary deductions out of an employee's paycheck without authorization from the employee. These are issued when an employee has a court order to provide health coverage for their child but they fail to do so.

So these QMCSOs are issued because "deadbeat" parents are not fulfilling their obligation as issued by the court.

Here is the part that is just an observation so take it how you may...

I have seen hundreds of these QMSCOs and out of all them, only one has been issued on a female employee.

With that, you can draw a few conclusions and I am not really sure how accurate they are.

Conclusion one - Men are more often responsible to cover their children under their health plans.

Conclusion two - Men more often shirk their responsibility of covering their children under their health plans.

Conclusion three - In my observation, QMSCOs are more likely issued on people making a lower wage than average and typically these employees have been male due to the industry/work (at least for the plans I administer) and that is why there seems to be a slant towards men appearing as "deadbeat" parents.

(Modified - My money is on a combination of conclusion one and conclusion three.)
Conclusion 4: Men just pay for their kid's health care when she won't pony up.

My ex keeps close tabs on what she spends and what I owe her. She's a CPA, after all.

Me, I could care less. If my boy needs it, my boy gets it, doesn't matter what "it" is, and after I pay, it's done. I don't go after her for the money, and I certainly wouldn't go to court to force payment from her.

It's like domestic abuse. I've seen studies that suggest WOMEN are far more physically abusive than men. Think about it. Women slap guys all the time. I saw a girl bust a guy's nose one night at a bar.

He just walked away. Bleeding.

None of that stuff gets reported either.

I realize women can be independent, but guys are sliced from rougher cuts of God. We're designed to be independent, and we don't as often ask for help.

Your stat doesn't surprise me at all.


- Saul
- November 6th, 2009, 03:10 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#17   Reply With Quote
cardguy cardguy is offline
cardguy's Avatar

Pacesetter

Join Date: Aug 2009

Posts: 297

See profile

D_Lion wrote :
Not always - as Saul alluded to the other day.

In fact, I read that men are legally considered to be a father of any child born during a marriage, regardless of who the actual father is, and forced to pay (extreme) amounts to women who produced illegitimate children.

These laws, in existence since prior to DNA, are clearly unjust and should have been stricken immediately once definitive establishment of heredity became possible.
Please cite your sources...I couldn't find anything to back up that claim. The closest thing I found was that there is a statute of limitations on contesting paternity in at least some states...in Texas for example it is 4 years. I can find nothing to indicate that a husband can be assessed child support payments if it is established that he is not the father.

Recommended reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_(law)

I will certainly grant that the law may still be catching up in some areas of the country...for example I think there's a good case to be made for eliminating the statue of limitations on paternity. However, the notion that if your wife gets pregnant you're on the hook for the child's support regardless of paternity is simply false.
Last edited by cardguy; November 6th, 2009 at 03:25 pm.
- November 6th, 2009, 03:14 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#18   Reply With Quote
neardc neardc is offline
neardc's Avatar

Volunteer Community Leader

Join Date: Jun 2008

Posts: 5,031

See profile

Conclusion 5: Men are more likely to be employed in jobs that provide health insurance.

So, lots of (very plausible) different conclusions possible when we just focus on the surface. The point, really, is that this is an area where it is very easy to generalize, but where individual circumstances often vary quite a bit from what one might assume based on one general statistic or another.
- November 6th, 2009, 03:16 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#19   Reply With Quote
D_Lion D_Lion is offline
D_Lion's Avatar

D_Lion - Ladies want to wring my neck - you have been warned!

Sage

Join Date: Aug 2008

Posts: 11,005

See profile

LizziePooh wrote :
... giving the employer the [mandate] to add a child unto a health plan and take any necessary deductions out of an employee's paycheck without authorization from the employee.

So these QMCSOs are issued because "deadbeat" parents are not fulfilling their obligation as issued by the court.

For instance, because doing so leaves not enough money for food and rent (assuming he is still able to afford rent, and is not forced to live with friends or family, as if often the case for low-paid men.)

This is a cost likely in the range of $200 / month, far more than I have available in my budget, and I am much better off than the shop-floor personnel. I am confident most of our factory workers do not have anything like $200 / month, or they couldn't eat.

***

Do you have data on the percentage of these men who weren't in the employer health plan at all, prior to receipt of the Order? This would be an indication of just how destitute they were (before the Order.)
- November 6th, 2009, 03:18 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#20   Reply With Quote

ADVERTISEMENT

Reply
Page 2 of 14 1 2 3 4 12 Last »

Bookmarks

« This might save your life. | Array | POLL: End of the world imminent -- how would you change your life? »
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Women in late 30's/early 40's who say they want kids Mayne About You 68 November 8th, 2009 07:07 pm

Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“ Well we don't know if she wants you two to get back together. Maybe the 'liar' has moved on, met someone else, is happy to be your friend but doesn't want to rekindle your romance. In which case ... ” – Mokkesofie

Join the “Is it a Lie or Not?” discussion

“Ditto here, nothing at all. ” – Mokkesofie

Join the “3rd Day of a 4-Day Free Communication Weekend” discussion

“I'm glad to hear you got my response ” – Mokkesofie

Join the “My match responded!!!” discussion

“How do you cope? Do you go out to restaurants, or have you become a hermit? Do you feel the need to explain this to everyone you meet? What kind of medical support are you getting and where are ... ” – Lilycat

Join the “Living Gluten Free” discussion

“Two other mothers and I had girls in tennis lessons on Fridays after school. We would take turns bringing nibbles and wine. I thought we were all having a good time. Now I find out that one of the ... ” – voteoften

Join the “Alcohol and dating...” discussion

“My heart always overrides the head. ” – Mokkesofie

Join the “In relationships: heart or head?” discussion

“Wait until you have actually had a few dates with someone. Don't accept any that are beyond your physical capabilities, and don't worry about it. It will probably take a while before you get a date ... ” – Lilycat

Join the “Health issue” discussion

“How do you get eH to let you just stay logged in? I use my personal computer and hate having to constantly log into sites I visit on a regular basis. Logging into the profile side of things is ... ” – activeteacher

Join the “Staying logged in” discussion



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:57 am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0