CDIH

It's hard enough to get a job as is, let alone being gay.

They need advantages.

Galt Wrote:

Arpikarhu Wrote:not life insurance, you ninnny. health insurance. and even if they werent an excessive health risk, it would still add alot of unpaying people onto the insurance rolls. you think insurance companies want to add people to the list of those they have to pay medical costs for if those same people arent contributing to the premiums? no.

statistically, gays are the one of the highest income, highest education social demographic out there. That would seemingly lower the inusurers credit risk.

What are you talking about?

let me explain this in moron terms.
some guy is working
his company provides health insurance
they pay a small premium for his health insurance due to bulk policy
he gets a boyfriend
they marry
now boyfriend is insured through marriage
boyfriend doesnt work for company
company doesnt increase premium benefit
boyfriend covered anyway
now insurance company pays health insurance to 2 people for price of one.
insurance company unhappy

my wife was covered under my plan and my coverage premium was only increased 50 dollars a year due to the agreement with the carrier.

i think arpi is totally bullshitting with his insurance argument, although it did sound like an interesting premise.

Galt Wrote:Seriously. It's something like 90% of gays over 25 are college graduates.

you have to remember thats only for "out" gays if they could identify them all then i am sure he number would be lower.

<marquee>hua</marquee>

Yeah but thats gonna happen in bulk anyway wether or not gays can get married or not. what about the influx of immigrants coming here and getting married, or the immigrants getting married for citizenship rights? Do we outlaw immigration now too? Plus gays are a drop in the bucket, they dont make up a huge chunk of the population, with the growining numbers of people and the ungodly amounts of idiots getting married who shouldn't this is all a drop in the bucket.

Your point makes sense but it's not really the major point at play here, it's the morals factor thats the main focus here. The same as was the case with the hoopla about the ten commandments monument.

Keyser Soze Wrote:i think arpi is totally bullshitting with his insurance argument, although it did sound like an interesting premise.

actually it makes perfect sense. i'm sure the insurance companies would be quite happy if nobody married, although i've heard that quite a few companies now give insurance benefits to domestic partners. meaning if 2 people live together for over a year, their partner gets covered regardless of gender or marital status.

I think most gay males are covered by insurance so there wouldn't be too many who would need to be married to a partner to get insurance.

Yeah but to every negative side there is a positive, don't forget how picky and outgoing fags are. The amounts of money they will spend on weddings and honeymoons will be a boost to the economy.

a lot of those immigrants don't work for companies that give them benefits

Quote:the insurance lobby is pushing pols hard to vote against all of this

what exactly are they doing? bribing the politicians? what incentive do they have to listen to the insurance lobby?

Bribes= fundraising

Marriage for citizenship isn't just when the paper is signed you get citizenship. My buddy's girl was about to get deported to South Africa and he married her to get her to stay but she won't be eligable for citizenship for another 2 years.

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

joint parenting
joint adoption
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

Arpikarhu Wrote:let me explain this in moron terms.
some guy is working
his company provides health insurance
they pay a small premium for his health insurance due to bulk policy
he gets a boyfriend
they marry
now boyfriend is insured through marriage
boyfriend doesnt work for company
company doesnt increase premium benefit
boyfriend covered anyway
now insurance company pays health insurance to 2 people for price of one.
insurance company unhappy

my wife was covered under my plan and my coverage premium was only increased 50 dollars a year due to the agreement with the carrier.

Like 2% of the population is gay. Even if 25% of them get married immediately, that means even if we assume your argument is correct and individual insurance is more expensive than family insurance, the insurance industry will lose SOME premium from 1/2 of 1/4 of 1/50th of the population.

And from what I have been told, "family" insurance is much more expensive than single insurance. But I can't prove it since as I mentioned I've never had to look at insurance for my wife and I.

That said, you might want to look at a greater sample size than your current "1" to make definative and blanket statements.

And Keyser's post is the reason why gay people should be able to get married. How can you prevent someone from those benefits. The only argument is against. THE ONLY one is this "sanctity" BS, which only holds water from a religious or cloudy "moral" standpoint.

I only know like one gay person, but for some reason this is one of the very few social issues that I really care about.



Edited By Galt on 1077142136

Quote: But I can't prove it since as I mentioned I've never had to look at insurance for my wife and I.

????

since I don't have a wife, I never had to look at that type of insurance. I have no idea how much it costs. I'll assume Arpi is full of shit, but I just can't quantify by how much

I think his point is that it would be cheaper for the couple if one person claimed both people under one policy as opposed to them filing separately. I think the government doesn’t want another portion of the demographic to be able to file taxes jointly and reap those tax benefits.

So....

On a lark, I searched for "health insurance quotes" on Google. I clicked the first link that came up and ended up at ehealthinsurance.com, looked at a life insurance quote for myself and was told $271/month (holy shit that's expensive!), then added JUST A SPOUSE. NO KIDS. who is the same age as I am and was told that it would be $703.

The sample size is one, but the insurance company would be getting more than 2x the premium for only 2x the risk.

Once again, Arpi is wrong.

But sometimes when you file though your company they cut you a break on your spouse /kids.