|S/he has no health insurance. Dealbreaker?Page 9 of 9 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)|
Quite shallow, but I saw she was over 40, never married, no kids....so it stands to reason why she's still single.
Ever stop to think that she might have spent YEARS gaining education/knowledge( they are not always exactly the same thing LOL) and building her own professional career?Perhaps she chose to put those things as a higher priority than marriage and children. If she was a he would you be saying "it stands to reason why HE's still single?"
Perhaps she's had the misfortune to witness someone close to her be financially devastated by an uninsured spouse/SO/close relative who had no medical insurance?
LOL A little off topic, but I may have one to add to the list - same criteria you mention, but had "Undecided/Open" for "Want kids?"
I believe she was 48.
Can we say "Downs" anybody? How irresponsible is that?
Ever occur to you that she listed herself as "undecided/open" so as to not piss off men who might have children? I'm not going to go on a statistics hunt- but I do not believe that a later-in-life pregnancy is a guarantee of birth defects.Can we say "small minded?"
I'm talking about being realistic in one's criteria.
Oh? Because she's 40 and single, she's not allowed to establish her OWN criteria for whom she dates or enters into a committed relationship with?
Labeling someone as "shallow" simply because she has criteria that you are unable to meet is nothing more than a defense mechanism on your part---it's just a convenient way to salvage your ego.
Wow....not sure how you would know he couldn't meet the criteria of having insurance. Looks like a big assumption there. AND, it really is just an opinion of how having criteria of "must have insurance" translates into character. It's individual, as is the definition of shallow. We're allowed. :)
Well, I took the use of the word "you" to be a general term, not directly specifying a particular poster.
Hint to all- it seems to sometimes be a better way to phrase a general statemen by using the term "one"-ex., "one is unable to meet criteria, it is just a convenient way to salvage ones' ego".
I just realized, let's say if someone doesn't have health insurance, and the other does, and they get married, can they get on that person's plan (through their employer of course)?
Quite often that is the case, but in many employment situations health insurance and/or other benefits are NOT guaranteed. Nor are retiree health care benefits.
I think that it's something each individual needs to make their own decision about. I blame no one who does some research before making a committment-especially an OFFICIAL committment. To those who reported marrying someone to provide them with medical insurance, I say that those folks PROVE that saints really do till walk among us.
If you are just going to date someone, or have a non-cohabiting LTR, I wouldn't think that medical insurance would be that big a deal. If one HAS medical coverage that can add a spouse, why worry-unless one is genuinely worried that they are being courted for access to that benefit( in other words, is one being targeted as a "marrying up" opportunity, rather than out of genuine love)-but somebody earlier mentioned "analysis paralysis". Analyzing a situation, researching benefits &risks, etc, are not necessarily bad,wrong or unwise actions-unless carried to extreme, IMO.