Gay Legislation
 

washington State is passing legislation that give gay and lesbian domestic partners access to insurance as though they were spouses. it's not the same as gay marriage, but it has the same legal effect in terms of health insurance.

People get sick. They need extended care. If we have the resources in our community to take care of people when this happens, then our choices are:

1) Take care of them. Because we can. If we don't, then we're denying what amounts to basic human survival services to people when we could save and care for them.

2) Fuk 'em. We'll use health as an incentive to encourage commerce......which is what life is really all about.

Health insurance is so screwed up in this country anyway, does it really matter if it's a little bit MORE screwed up?

Re: Gay Legislation
 

I bet this goes to court, so much for the sanctity of life.

Empty words.........................................

National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2006
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060120-5.html

What about people who change partners frequently? Or have several in any given week?

I'm straight, and I wouldn't get to extend health benefits to every floozy that I shacked up with.

+1, I like threesomes, that is one of my sexual preferences, we should get benefits too!!!

What this will mean is the death of "Health Benefits" from where you work. Or it may be benefits for just the worker.

What about straight domestic partners who aren't married? Would they get access? I see a double standard...

I don't think option 2 is viable. I am not interested in men and I doubt lesbians would let me.

I love my dog.

Me too! I'm so glad she's female...not that there's anything wrong with that :)

Lots of interesting questions. Here's mine, for those of you who apparently missed it:

Assuming that we COULD provide health care to everyone who needs it (a reasonable assumption I think), the question is do we, or should we withhold health care from certain people as an incentive to force them to go out there and get a corporate sponsor or make enough money to pay for it directly?

You know. That important American principle: SURVIVAL OF THE ECONOMICALLY FITEST?

We could probably afford to pay for it for Mexicans too Sup, in fcat we could probably cover a few other third world countries if we wanted to. Isn't this a basic human right? Or are you in favor of "SURVIVAL OF THE ECONOMICALLY FITEST? "

"If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free"
P.J. O'Rourke

Supe, you approach this from the wrong end.

Healthcare is not a right, it is not a duty, it is not a common courtesy. It is a tool some employers use to recruit and retain people. It costs money. That money can come from one of two places: yourself or other people. The question should be "Is it fair to the people who have money to take it from them, without recourse, to pay for healthcare for other people?"

BTW Supe, I don't think it's fair that you have a 911. I think you should provide me with one. It is my right. You can afford it.

Seems like if we want to really save money, we are coming in way too late to the cycle by only providing free health care.

Because there are other, more basic survival needs that aren't being met.

Such as the MOST basic, quality housing and quality food. Even a caveman needed food and shelter to survive, they are far more basic needs than healthcare.

Everyone should get free quality housing and free quality food. If everyone had that, just think of the health care savings we'd enjoy! Everyone would be much healthier, and need much less health care.

(Living in a nice house and eating well would also make people far less grumpy and likely to commit crimes, so we'd save on police and jail costs, too! Everyone wins!)

It's our choice, we can pay now, or just say f*** 'em and pay even more later.

So, in conclusion, we should give free quality housing and free quality, nutrious, well balanced meals (3X per day, plus 2X for snacks like apples and bananas) per day, to everyone.

What about people who, being coddled from cradle to grave, become bored and commit crimes? What about people who decide that everything is provided for them to keep them docile and under government control--and act out accordingly?

Gated Communities with armed security personnel are the answer.

This is just another attempt by the left to push two agenda's:

1. Gay Marriage
2. Government provided health-care

My opinion is if you simply call the Gay Union what it is, a Gay Union then this wouldn't be an issue. You have to get a legal union in the eyes of the court to be able to receive the benefits. You treat the union as a marriage in every aspect. If they don't call it "Marriage" then you don't have the religious aspect of the argument.

As far as Universal Health-care goes...well I was forced to use Italy's universal health-care after being in an accident and let's just say it was sub-par. They let me walk out of the emergency room with nothing more than a prescription for pain killers. After several weeks and getting back to the states, I found out that I had a broken ankle and a broken wrist. The wrist they had to re-break in order to let it heal right. :eek: So, I'm in favor of the system that we have now...it works and is one of the best in the world...

Hopefully this isn't too far off subject, but let the discussion continue...

Funny. Chris favors using health care as leverage to get people to make money, their basic American economic duty. Bob anticipates the net effect of Chris' strategy, and is prepared to consider gated living along with that added expense.

I wonder how much we're already paying in police and insurance costs that could be avoided.

The only problem I see with #1 is that many in this country would have to recognize Gays as human beings and not as amoral hedonistic sinners, something that, from the look of some of the responses in this thread, will probably never happen.