5 ms·

speaking as a millennial there is a big reason Marriage is overtaking divorce. Health insurance. Most of us dont have jobs that afford us competent healthcare

speaking as a millennial there is a big reason Marriage is overtaking divorce. Health insurance. Most of us dont have jobs that afford us competent healthcare. Seriously, thank the gig economy. Affordable Care Act providers either do not exist in some states or are overpriced/worthless for what they do cover. There are still roughly 25 states that have not expanded medicare either. Getting married is a quick and simple way to either pick up good healthcare from a friend, or get a discount on your own for "being married."

koolba 8y ago
That aligns with traditional marriage vows: “...in good times and bad”. I suppose the “ok” times are the most precarious as things are not good enough to stay but the couple is also self sufficient enough to leave.
dleslie 8y ago
Aye, I have a handful of American friends who have married another friend simply to access/combine one-another's health benefits. That doesn't seem to happen in Canada...
- itchyouch 8y ago
  Wouldnt the divorce rate go higher then? Since its out of convenience/benefits, once one finds a partner, they divorce and remarry.
  - dleslie 8y ago
    Only if you think you need to divorce to enter into another relationship. I have friends who live with new partners but are married to someone else altogether; they see the process of getting divorced as an unnecessary and expensive hassle. Really, how much of our social rituals are thus so encumbered to the primary benefit of bureaucrats and lawyers?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
    I have no facts, but I'd guess it would not. Financial dependence keeps people in bad marriages - and marrying for health care creates a sort of financial dependence.
- EADGBE 8y ago
  In contrast, I have seen Canadians marry Americans; for various perks.
kodablah 8y ago
I'm not sure. This is at odds w/ some parts of the article near the end claiming marriage as a status symbol, specifically: > Fewer people are getting married [...] Many poorer and less educated Americans are opting not to get married at all Granted the article is not necessarily any more accurate. My pet theory is lack of societal compulsion.
- kradroy 8y ago
  I remember a Howard Stern interview (back in 2005-6?) with Paul McCartney where Howard asked if Paul was making his new wife sign a pre-nup. He wasn't. His response was "A pre-nup for someone who's worth half a billion dollars doesn't make sense. You'll live fine on a quarter billion dollars. It's the guy who's only worth $80k that should be getting a pre-nup." I definitely put off marriage (I'm on the youngest side of Gen-X) because I saw how my parents' divorce ruined my father's finances and caused a lot of strife.
  - EADGBE 8y ago
    It's that middle ground; the guy worth $0 doesn't have much to lose, either.
diminoten 8y ago
> Most of us dont have jobs that afford us competent healthcare. Is this true? I hear people say things like this but "most"? Seems too high.
- cheeko1234 8y ago
  Most might be a bit of an exaggeration but retail & food service industry definitely changed the way they operate just to avoid providing healthcare. >A June 2016 study determined that 500,000 workers in the retail, hospitality and food service sectors were forced involuntarily into part-time employment as companies sought to circumvent the employer mandate https://www.marketwatch.com/story/businesses-eliminated-hundreds-of-thousands-of-full-time-jobs-to-avoid-obamacare-mandate-2017-11-24 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/businesses-eliminated-hund...
  - Spivak 8y ago
    I really have to wonder why this wasn't accounted for in the ACA. Like what business isn't going to decide if the administrative overhead of having more employees is less than the cost of providing healthcare and act accordingly? Would it have been that hard to require health insurance contributions in proportion to the employee's percentage FTE? Then it would actually be cheaper for businesses to hire full-time and someone working 40hr/wk at multiple jobs gets the same benefit as a salaried employee.
    - bluGill 8y ago
      If we want to do something meaningful we would make it so nobody gets insurance from their employer. I don't like my insurance, in a competitive market the insurance I want would only be slightly cheaper - but I don't actually have that option because I would be throwing $1000/month (nobody will tell me the real numbers, but it is in that range) that my employer contributes away. Those who can only work fast food will never have it easy, but as you point out making them work less hours isn't going to help them.
- chrisbennet 8y ago
lucozade 8y ago
Maybe. I've just been looking at the UK stats and the divorce rate for <35s has dropped like a stone. It was fairly steady up until the early 90s then has plummeted to a quarter of that level. In contrast, the rate for 35+ peaked in the early 90s then has dropped by a quarter. This can't be explained by healthcare as marriage has very little effect on that in the UK. Could still be financial, of course, and could also be job security related though probably more related to housing than healthcare. But that's just speculation on my part. Have to say, I don't think I've ever looked at the divorce stats before (never had a reason) but they're fascinating. For example, the number for men petitioning for divorces has remained pretty constant since the Divorce Reform Act in 1971. The number of women petitioning, though, ballooned through the 80s and 90s and has now dropped back to about the level in 1971. No idea why but interesting nonetheless.
Regardsyjc 8y ago
As a fledgling entrepreneur, health insurance is one of the major pros of marriage for me. One of my Amazon seller colleagues was recently diagnosed with cancer and he's still in his 20s. It's heartbreaking.
sulam 8y ago
I would only believe this if people were also not getting divorced because they didn't want to lose access to health care. If you have any statistics on this, that'd be interesting. Otherwise, you're simply saying there's a force exerting pressure to get married. Yet the data shows that this force is far less effective than whatever forces existed 50 years ago. People are not getting married _more_ than baby boomers, they're getting married _less_. And then they're divorcing at lower rates after that.

koolba 8y ago

That aligns with traditional marriage vows: “...in good times and bad”. I suppose the “ok” times are the most precarious as things are not good enough to stay but the couple is also self sufficient enough to leave.

dleslie 8y ago

Aye, I have a handful of American friends who have married another friend simply to access/combine one-another's health benefits. That doesn't seem to happen in Canada...

itchyouch 8y ago
Wouldnt the divorce rate go higher then? Since its out of convenience/benefits, once one finds a partner, they divorce and remarry.
- dleslie 8y ago
  Only if you think you need to divorce to enter into another relationship. I have friends who live with new partners but are married to someone else altogether; they see the process of getting divorced as an unnecessary and expensive hassle. Really, how much of our social rituals are thus so encumbered to the primary benefit of bureaucrats and lawyers?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  I have no facts, but I'd guess it would not. Financial dependence keeps people in bad marriages - and marrying for health care creates a sort of financial dependence.
EADGBE 8y ago
In contrast, I have seen Canadians marry Americans; for various perks.

kodablah 8y ago

I'm not sure. This is at odds w/ some parts of the article near the end claiming marriage as a status symbol, specifically: > Fewer people are getting married [...] Many poorer and less educated Americans are opting not to get married at all Granted the article is not necessarily any more accurate. My pet theory is lack of societal compulsion.

kradroy 8y ago
I remember a Howard Stern interview (back in 2005-6?) with Paul McCartney where Howard asked if Paul was making his new wife sign a pre-nup. He wasn't. His response was "A pre-nup for someone who's worth half a billion dollars doesn't make sense. You'll live fine on a quarter billion dollars. It's the guy who's only worth $80k that should be getting a pre-nup." I definitely put off marriage (I'm on the youngest side of Gen-X) because I saw how my parents' divorce ruined my father's finances and caused a lot of strife.
- EADGBE 8y ago
  It's that middle ground; the guy worth $0 doesn't have much to lose, either.

diminoten 8y ago

> Most of us dont have jobs that afford us competent healthcare. Is this true? I hear people say things like this but "most"? Seems too high.

cheeko1234 8y ago
Most might be a bit of an exaggeration but retail & food service industry definitely changed the way they operate just to avoid providing healthcare. >A June 2016 study determined that 500,000 workers in the retail, hospitality and food service sectors were forced involuntarily into part-time employment as companies sought to circumvent the employer mandate https://www.marketwatch.com/story/businesses-eliminated-hundreds-of-thousands-of-full-time-jobs-to-avoid-obamacare-mandate-2017-11-24 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/businesses-eliminated-hund...
- Spivak 8y ago
  I really have to wonder why this wasn't accounted for in the ACA. Like what business isn't going to decide if the administrative overhead of having more employees is less than the cost of providing healthcare and act accordingly? Would it have been that hard to require health insurance contributions in proportion to the employee's percentage FTE? Then it would actually be cheaper for businesses to hire full-time and someone working 40hr/wk at multiple jobs gets the same benefit as a salaried employee.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    If we want to do something meaningful we would make it so nobody gets insurance from their employer. I don't like my insurance, in a competitive market the insurance I want would only be slightly cheaper - but I don't actually have that option because I would be throwing $1000/month (nobody will tell me the real numbers, but it is in that range) that my employer contributes away. Those who can only work fast food will never have it easy, but as you point out making them work less hours isn't going to help them.
chrisbennet 8y ago

lucozade 8y ago

Maybe. I've just been looking at the UK stats and the divorce rate for <35s has dropped like a stone. It was fairly steady up until the early 90s then has plummeted to a quarter of that level. In contrast, the rate for 35+ peaked in the early 90s then has dropped by a quarter. This can't be explained by healthcare as marriage has very little effect on that in the UK. Could still be financial, of course, and could also be job security related though probably more related to housing than healthcare. But that's just speculation on my part. Have to say, I don't think I've ever looked at the divorce stats before (never had a reason) but they're fascinating. For example, the number for men petitioning for divorces has remained pretty constant since the Divorce Reform Act in 1971. The number of women petitioning, though, ballooned through the 80s and 90s and has now dropped back to about the level in 1971. No idea why but interesting nonetheless.

Regardsyjc 8y ago

As a fledgling entrepreneur, health insurance is one of the major pros of marriage for me. One of my Amazon seller colleagues was recently diagnosed with cancer and he's still in his 20s. It's heartbreaking.

sulam 8y ago

I would only believe this if people were also not getting divorced because they didn't want to lose access to health care. If you have any statistics on this, that'd be interesting. Otherwise, you're simply saying there's a force exerting pressure to get married. Yet the data shows that this force is far less effective than whatever forces existed 50 years ago. People are not getting married _more_ than baby boomers, they're getting married _less_. And then they're divorcing at lower rates after that.