Now they tinker and try again maybe sometime to understand that demand and people who earn little and have little nciht are the same.
And the courts are a hard nut to old and new basic security teeth.
most recent personal example: the woman with whom the applicant lives together will not pay for it. Snuggle yes, common household too, but strict segregation of cash. For years. This helps understand so little with § 20 SGB XII in line. In other words, the legislature required that he parts, look for their own Wohnugn and is willing to offset the higher costs.
But as I said, she does not want and they will not pay even their health insurance contribution. So their demand is not met. Things look it is the SG Munich, which focuses only on the evidence of the community (who has to be nachkästchen his cabinet), then the negative per se claims of basic insurance. Aha.
And as it comes to payment of a life partner? Action against the partner for maintenance "quasi" because it is prevented by a social law to pick the betterment of communities, or what? That would be a cause of action.
So I can not keep. The scheme may well be the basic idea makes sense, but how do I fill the gap? The spouse or family member who would collect nothing you can complain at least. When partner is now well known, is not the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment