Terri Carlson, a divorced woman in her forties with a rare genetic condition, is searching for a husband. More specifically, she’s seeking a husband who can provide her with health care coverage because she cannot obtain coverage due to her preexisting condition. To that end, she has set up a website to promote herself and solicit offers from potential suitors. In a YouTube video featured in a CBS News interview, she said, “The lower the co-pay, the sexier you are to me!”
I don’t post this because I’m interested in throwing my hat in the ring (although she seems like a lovely woman and, hey, she could do worse), but to point out that this is probably an exaggerated example of a real trend. Plenty of couples probably factor in health care coverage considerations when deciding whether and even whom to marry. And it’s a concern that probably never enters the head of a woman living in Canada or the U.K. or any other country with national health care.
To be fair, Ms. Carlson could look for a different job that offers health care, but the combination of a bad economy and her health issues may make that a difficult proposition. Meanwhile, the Democrats are still wringing their hands over whether to pass a health care bill. If they fail, perhaps Ms. Carlson can guilt a Democratic congressman or senator into marrying her. I hear those federal benefits are pretty good.
On the flip side, there are the many people who divorce their spouses in order to get state provided benefits. Lose the spouse, go down to one income, have the courts give the spouse all the assets and you qualify for Medicaid. Both trends are disturbing.