From the song "It's cheaper to keep her": // You didn't pay two dollars to bring that woman home Now you gotta pay two thousand to leave her alone. //
Divorce is becoming more popular, and alimony can be incredibly expensive. Why not protect yourself from it by taking out insurance on your marriage. In the event of divorce, they pay whatever legal and child support payments you may accrue.
This scheme would, of course, need to be protected from fraud. I suggest that the payments be linked to the length of time you've been married, starting at one year (to prevent blatant scams), and also to your combined income and the price of your home.
(note to self: never type lyrics while asleep)-- sadie, Jul 11 2002 Stand by your (wo)man http://www.usatoday...2-07-11-divorce.htmStudy shows unhappy marriage partners are better off not getting divorced. [beauxeault, Jul 11 2002, last modified Oct 04 2004] A pre-nup is just an agreement, isn't it, rather than helping you pay?-- sadie, Jul 11 2002 Insurance companies get enough money already. If you're that worried about alimony payments, don't get married.
Won't this insurance just make people less trusting of each other? I mean if i knew that my spouse had insurance for marriage, i would certainly begin to think that soemthing's going on everytime she goes out to the 'doctor'.-- [ sctld ], Jul 11 2002 How I wish this had been available ten years ago .... croissant, croissant and croissant again. May the Great Bird of the Galaxy bestow its blessings upon you.
Can I suggest a "budget" scheme whereby the insurance pays out juuuuust enough to pay for a hit man ?-- 8th of 7, Jul 11 2002 Good heavens, 8th.-- Matty, Jul 11 2002 There is a positive side to this, [sctld]. If you have children, you want to make sure they'll be properly provided for if you go. Life insurance kicks in when you pop your clogs (or a few months afterwards). But if you just leave, they're in trouble.-- sadie, Jul 11 2002 This is marriage insurance, not child benefit.-- [ sctld ], Jul 11 2002 In the interests of preventing fraud, this would only pay out if it was the other person's fault, I assume.
Will you marry me, blissmiss?-- pottedstu, Jul 11 2002 and how are people supposed to pay for child support, [sctld]? what if you can't afford it?-- sadie, Jul 11 2002 If you can't afford to keep a child, you shouldn't have had a child in the first place. And again, if they can't afford to keep a child, how could they possibly afford the insurance?
I've always thought that the system of paying for maintenance and then sueing when they don't shell up is stupid. Spending time wiht a child is more important than spending money that you don't know for certain will be spent on the child.-- [ sctld ], Jul 11 2002 pottedstu: "this would only pay out if it was the other person's fault" ..... oh, wow. More arguments. More rich lawyers....-- 8th of 7, Jul 11 2002 //Divorce is becoming more popular//
Is that true? I thought recent trends had shown a slight decline in divorce rates. And I just read today about a study that should make divorce even less popular, as it suggests that people in unhappy marriages are more likely to be happy five years later if they stay married than if they divorce (see link).-- beauxeault, Jul 11 2002 Would the insurance also be applicable to bodies, so I can get back my pre-marriage figure after the divorce?-- hexadecimal, Jul 11 2002 [pottedstu] Most kinds of insurance are so planned that one is covered even if it's one's fault. After all, we pay for it.
Another kind of potentially useful insurance: university insurance, for the student or his parents. The insured person is compensated if the student fails to graduate.-- Gwenanda, Jul 11 2002 What 8th of 7 said on his first annotation.-- thumbwax, Jul 12 2002 What insurance company would take this on? Not only does it make one unpopular (encouraging quick breakup of marriages), not only is it wide open for abuse (compared to policies insuring against events over which the insured has less control), but divorce is sufficiently common that pooling isn't going to be very helpful in terms of reducing risk. If half of marriages end in divorce, on average you're going to pay at least half of what you'd get paid out, discounted to present value.-- bookworm, Jul 12 2002 <pedant>This is actually divorce insurance, not marriage insurance.</pedant>-- angel, Jul 12 2002 Does that mean you have death insurance, angel?-- sadie, Jul 12 2002 I have accident insurance, fire insurance, theft insurance and redundancy insurance, but point taken. (Note to self: think first.)-- angel, Jul 12 2002 I now wonder why the call it "life insurance", because sadie is quite right in referring to it as "death insurance" (the actual insured event). Maybe it's an image thing. People prefer to think about life rather than death ?-- 8th of 7, Jul 12 2002 I wonder if the distinction arises because death is (according to available data) inevitable, but the other events are not. Life insurance is often called "life assurance". (From dictionary.com: "Recently, assurance has been used, in England, in relation to life contingencies, and insurance in relation to other contingencies.")[_kt]: That's accident / fire / theft insurance for your car.-- angel, Jul 12 2002 How about just enough insurance to purchase a big pumpkin to keep her in, or a big rock to drop on her head.
I'm in trouble now, aren't I?-- mighty_cheese, Jul 12 2002 Yep. You're in trouble with the cartoon standards police. You should've said 'Anvil'-- [ sctld ], Jul 12 2002 About the fault thing, home insurance will only pay up if you kept everything locked, there was forced entry, etc. Car insurance won't cover you if you crash on purpose, and I'm not sure what happens if you're drunk or otherwise incapable. The basic thing is, you have to take all reasonable precautions to prevent the insured-against incident.
If you let a stranger into your house, you're not covered against theft, so if you let a stranger into your marriage would you be covered against divorce?
(I'll take my marriage negotiations with blissmiss offline. Sorry)-- pottedstu, Jul 12 2002 pottedstu: "insurance will only pay up if you kept everything locked" - I suggest you stop thatn line of thought, because pretty soon you're going to get onto the subject of five-lever locks, and chains and stuff and it's all going to get rather wierd and kinky and unpleasant.
"reasonable care" seems the usual test - what about no-claims bonuses ?
If your marriage crashed, would it be left to the insurers to decide whether to try and fix it, or just scrap it ?
If they decided to scrap it, would you be able to buy it back and try and fix it yourself ?
mighty_cheese: No, before you were in trouble. Now, you're in BIG trouble, and the worst kind too. Hell hath no fury and all that.
[ sctld ]: please avoid buying anything, especially weapons and pyrotechnics, from the ACME supply company. I have seen the training films, and their demonstrator, Mr. Coyote, seems to have endless problems with the kit.-- 8th of 7, Jul 12 2002 I feel violated...-- [ sctld ], Jul 12 2002 [ sctld ] - you mean you feel like someone hit you with a stringed instrument played with a bow, bigger than a violin but smaller than a cello ?-- 8th of 7, Jul 12 2002 beauxeault, the divorce rate might be going down because so many peopel aren't bothering to marry in the first place. Presumeably these people would have been less likely to stay married. And, even if you could insure against divorce, nobody could afford the premiums. Oh wait... how about those 'replacement only' insurances?!-- pfperry, Jul 12 2002 pfperry: yes... or "New-for-old" ? Now you're talking ! Tell me more .....-- 8th of 7, Jul 12 2002 random, halfbakery