Preacher makes a good case against homosexuality

[dogtowner]

Should no one get survivor benefits and access to spousal healthcare, or should everyone get those things?

neither. spouses should and do.

 

[dogtowner]

??? Insurance companies don't ask for a marriage cert. They only ask for name, and SS# and if the other person is insured with another company.

they rely on the legal definition if they do not choose to include domestic partners.

 

[PLC1]

neither. spouses should and do.

Isn't that giving special privileges to heterosexuals?

 

[dogtowner]

Isn't that giving special privileges to heterosexuals?

no. its acknowledging the obvious.
no. neither does it harm non-sexual partners whi might seek this remedy (there are many people who live together to reduce expenses and you might say they love each other sans sex) but they are not spouses either.

 

[Dr.Who]

Should no one get survivor benefits and access to spousal healthcare, or should everyone get those things?

survivor benefits from social security were not a part of social security when it was started. Socials security is not an entitlement program it is supposed to be more like an insurance program so that people who pay for premiums get benefits based on actuarial tables. the way it works now variuous new benefits are being paid out but without premiums being paid in first - that is unsustainable. Nevertheless, if we are going to pay survivor benefits then they should be paid to people based on rules that make sense. What is the purpose of survivor benefits? If you know the purpose then you will know who should get them.
According to a socia security website I found the purpose is to protect the young families, especially those with children, of people who paid in. Clearly the adopted or biological children of payees should be the ones to get the benefits. The marital status of the parents would seem to be irrelevant since a child of a deceased person would be a child regardless of whether or not that person is married to a man or a woman.

The next question one should ask is if one wants to participate in a system as a single person who cannot claim these benefits if one has to pay the same premium as a married person with dependents. As long as one makes this decision for oneself without coercion then there is no problem. But being a participant in SS is not without coercion.

Spousal healthcare is a matter between the person who chooses to buy an insurance policy and the company that offers it - or it should be. Since insurance companies want to have as many customers as possible and to sell them as many policies as possible clearly they would want to be able to sell policies that cover spouses/partners/whatever to as many people as possible. And in fact I just read a huff po article that says that 72 percent of companies do offer domestic partners coverage (and 68 percent offer coverage to unmarried straight couples). The trend is for companies that offer coverage to require a proof of marriage in states that permit gay marriages - so we see that the existence of gay marriage results in a restrictio of their freedoms.

 

[Openmind]

My minister said in this sermon.

Hes right

No. Your minister is wrong.

The minister in THIS video is right!

 

[Openmind]

Well as usual I did not watch the video but I doubt the preacher made a good case against homosexuality that belonged as part of the testimony for a law. Could he make a good case from the pulpit? Sure. But that is totally different.

If you had watched the video, you would know that he makes the case Against BANNING homosexuality and for gay rights. He simply does it in an original manner that gets people thinking. . .

Okay, later on in this thread I came up to the post you wrote AFTER you watched the video. Glad you did watch it and got the point that was made. Apparently few people did!

 

[PLC1]

survivor benefits from social security were not a part of social security when it was started. Socials security is not an entitlement program it is supposed to be more like an insurance program so that people who pay for premiums get benefits based on actuarial tables. the way it works now variuous new benefits are being paid out but without premiums being paid in first - that is unsustainable. Nevertheless, if we are going to pay survivor benefits then they should be paid to people based on rules that make sense. What is the purpose of survivor benefits? If you know the purpose then you will know who should get them.
According to a socia security website I found the purpose is to protect the young families, especially those with children, of people who paid in. Clearly the adopted or biological children of payees should be the ones to get the benefits. The marital status of the parents would seem to be irrelevant since a child of a deceased person would be a child regardless of whether or not that person is married to a man or a woman.

The next question one should ask is if one wants to participate in a system as a single person who cannot claim these benefits if one has to pay the same premium as a married person with dependents. As long as one makes this decision for oneself without coercion then there is no problem. But being a participant in SS is not without coercion.

Spousal healthcare is a matter between the person who chooses to buy an insurance policy and the company that offers it - or it should be. Since insurance companies want to have as many customers as possible and to sell them as many policies as possible clearly they would want to be able to sell policies that cover spouses/partners/whatever to as many people as possible. And in fact I just read a huff po article that says that 72 percent of companies do offer domestic partners coverage (and 68 percent offer coverage to unmarried straight couples). The trend is for companies that offer coverage to require a proof of marriage in states that permit gay marriages - so we see that the existence of gay marriage results in a restrictio of their freedoms.

The reality is that many Americans depend on a spouse's employer provided health insurance, and would not be able to have it at all were it not for having a husband/wife who is lucky enough to be working for an employer who still provides health insurance.

As costs go up, it is likely that fewer and fewer jobs will provide health care coverage, but in today's world, that's how it is. In the case of a homosexual couple, they both have to have coverage in one way or another.

 

[Dr.Who]

The reality is that many Americans depend on a spouse's employer provided health insurance, and would not be able to have it at all were it not for having a husband/wife who is lucky enough to be working for an employer who still provides health insurance.

As costs go up, it is likely that fewer and fewer jobs will provide health care coverage, but in today's world, that's how it is. In the case of a homosexual couple, they both have to have coverage in one way or another.

And since 72 percent of insurance companies offer insurance to gay mates the only real problem is that the employer picks the insurance plan and not the individual, meaning that an employer might pick one of the 28 percent of companies that do not offer this (private) benefit. The best solution would be to restore a freer market in which individuals choose their own insurance company.

I would add incidentally that this is far larger a problem for couples in which one partner chooses to raise children as a stay at home parent and is far less of a problem in the largely gay "DINK" community.

 

[PLC1]

And since 72 percent of insurance companies offer insurance to gay mates the only real problem is that the employer picks the insurance plan and not the individual, meaning that an employer might pick one of the 28 percent of companies that do not offer this (private) benefit. The best solution would be to restore a freer market in which individuals choose their own insurance company.

I would add incidentally that this is far larger a problem for couples in which one partner chooses to raise children as a stay at home parent and is far less of a problem in the largely gay "DINK" community.

Except that the other reality in today's market is that an individual policy is generally a lot more expensive and covers less than a group policy.

and, before Omamneycare became law, an individual with a "pre existing condition" couldn't get coverage at any price.

 

[Dr.Who]

Except that the other reality in today's market is that an individual policy is generally a lot more expensive and covers less than a group policy.

and, before Omamneycare became law, an individual with a "pre existing condition" couldn't get coverage at any price.

You realize that the cost of individual policies is a function of insurance companies and politicians wanting everyone to be on group plans? Why use legislation to coerce people onto group plans at all (tax legislation in this case)? This is a loss of freedom. Get rid of the legislation that pushes people into group plans and the cost in general for all plans would drop. Stop the situation in whcih employers are the only viable source of a plan and the increased freedom and free markets would once again result in reasonable prices for health care. People might even choose group plans without coercion.

Coverage for pre-existing conditions is an obomination of the contract system. Apply this thinking to other contracts and our whole system would fall apart. It IS only a matter of time before people start applying the concept to at least a few other types of contracts. How far will it go?

There are much better ways to people with pre-existing conditions than to pervert contract law (unless the goal is universal single payer). The first goal should be to aim for reasonable health care costs. We COULD do it. The left rails against big corporations and in this case it is the big insurance companies that are in bed with politicians dooping the left. Obmacare just increased the number of people buying insurance! Without increasing the number of people able to get affordable health care.

 

[PLC1]

You realize that the cost of individual policies is a function of insurance companies and politicians wanting everyone to be on group plans? Why use legislation to coerce people onto group plans at all (tax legislation in this case)? This is a loss of freedom. Get rid of the legislation that pushes people into group plans and the cost in general for all plans would drop. Stop the situation in whcih employers are the only viable source of a plan and the increased freedom and free markets would once again result in reasonable prices for health care. People might even choose group plans without coercion.

Coverage for pre-existing conditions is an obomination of the contract system. Apply this thinking to other contracts and our whole system would fall apart. It IS only a matter of time before people start applying the concept to at least a few other types of contracts. How far will it go?

There are much better ways to people with pre-existing conditions than to pervert contract law (unless the goal is universal single payer). The first goal should be to aim for reasonable health care costs. We COULD do it. The left rails against big corporations and in this case it is the big insurance companies that are in bed with politicians dooping the left. Obmacare just increased the number of people buying insurance! Without increasing the number of people able to get affordable health care.

The cost of individual vs. group insurance is more a function of being able to spread the risks around than anything else.

But, you're correct that the solution is to have reasonable costs for everyone. Unfortunately, we don't have that. Obamneycare is not going to bring us reasonable costs either, but costs have been out of control for some time now.

The core of the issue is that the USA has the most expensive health care system in the world.

 

[Dr.Who]

The cost of individual vs. group insurance is more a function of being able to spread the risks around than anything else.

The purpose for group insurance is explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_insurance

But, you're correct that the solution is to have reasonable costs for everyone. Unfortunately, we don't have that. Obamneycare is not going to bring us reasonable costs either, but costs have been out of control for some time now.

Yep and yep. Irts not going to result in better costs, it is not going to result in any more people getting healthcare, and it is going to result in more gov red tape - so tell me again why did we do it?

The core of the issue is that the USA has the most expensive health care system in the world.

Not when looked at from a more nuanced perspective. We have better care than many and so obviously pay more for better. We also have more - more cosmetic surgery, more elective surgery, more frivolous operations, more private rooms, more new equipment, more short lines, ... and yes we pay more for more. We also don't hide the cost of medical care like they do in France for example where doctors tuition is paid for from a completely different source and not included in the cost of health care.

Yes it is still more expensive than it should be. Insurance companies make a measly 4% profit so don't blame them. Doctors and hospitals likewise are not overpaid despsite what the commy profit haters will tell you. But congress does tend to meddle a lot and all that meddling does drive up costs.

 

[PLC1]

here's a good way to bring down costs:

 

[Openmind]

The purpose for group insurance is explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_insurance

Yep and yep. Irts not going to result in better costs, it is not going to result in any more people getting healthcare, and it is going to result in more gov red tape - so tell me again why did we do it?



Not when looked at from a more nuanced perspective. We have better care than many and so obviously pay more for better. We also have more - more cosmetic surgery, more elective surgery, more frivolous operations, more private rooms, more new equipment, more short lines, ... and yes we pay more for more. We also don't hide the cost of medical care like they do in France for example where doctors tuition is paid for from a completely different source and not included in the cost of health care.

Yes it is still more expensive than it should be. Insurance companies make a measly 4% profit so don't blame them. Doctors and hospitals likewise are not overpaid despsite what the commy profit haters will tell you. But congress does tend to meddle a lot and all that meddling does drive up costs.

Still delusional about the "better care" in the US, I see!
Well, I guess if you refuse to listen or even look at polls, or statistics, or any reasonable proof that doesn't meet your need, you can self-proclaim "better care" for the country were it cost 3 times as much per capita, although many individuals are not covered, and were our infant mortality as well as our life expectation is lower than most developed country in the world!

And. . .how do you explain if insurance make a "measly 4% profit" that our insurance is so high?

I'll give you a hint: the "profit" is calculated AFTER the golden handshakes, the huge bonuses, the luxury accomodations, the constant marketing assault, etc. . etc. . .

Private health care insurance is the most inefficient industry in this country. Obviously, they won't "show" much profit, because they TAKE THEIR PROFITS before the balance sheet is drawn, so that they can LOWER THEIR TAXES LIABILITY.

Mod edit: No personal attacks, please!

Arrogance leads to your refusal to consider anything that might be uncomfortable to you. . .and it makes you, a person whom I think has a good potential for common sense and intelligence, as stupid as all those tea party moron holding up their signs that say "keep the government out of my medicare!"

A public option would have resolved a LOT of the issues with the cost of insurance, because it would have given the for profit insurance REAL competition instead of allowing them to do price fixing.

Mod edit: No personal attacks, please!

Get real!