I'm sure there is. My initial point was that it's not like this would hurt the insurance companies in any significant way. I still stand by this.
1. It's a very small fraction of a small fraction of the population
2. Its' a faction of the population that has a very good credit history and therefore should result in less defaults
3. The initial contention that insurance companies are hurt by marriage because the married premium is lower than the combined premiums for individual policies is debatable
you can never argue with the 3 point rebuttal
Gay marriage should be recognized by the states that wish to recognize it. There should be no constitutional amendment banning it; it is a matter to be decided by the states.
There are too few things in this country that are left to be decided upon by the states. Especially given that the basic tenet this country was founded upon was less power to the central government due to empowered state and local governments
Galt Wrote: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.
That is un fucking believable.
In Canada, I think, health care was until recently or is covered if you were a citizen... & might be in Sweden, I think.
It really should just be available. That's one thing nobody should have to worry about. If you do stupid shit, though, & hurt yourself, then the burden should be on you. Nobody else should have to fund drunk drivers' traction & surgery bills, never mind healthcare/lawsuit overlap. Just plain simple life is risk enough as it is.
and who is appointed judge of the "stupid shit" board that stands at the door of every hospital making that decision?
Galt Wrote: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.
hey dumb ass, that is if you insurance yourself. ibut f you recieve it from your workplace its a big difference. as i said in my example adding my spouse cost me 50 bucks a year and she contributed nothing into our health and welfare fund.
I thought you lied about the wife and the job though.
Black Lazerus Wrote: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.
there is actually a marriage penalty, not a dividend.
Galt Wrote:I'm sure there is. My initial point was that it's not like this would hurt the insurance companies in any significant way. I still stand by this.
1. It's a very small fraction of a small fraction of the population
2. Its' a faction of the population that has a very good credit history and therefore should result in less defaults
3. The initial contention that insurance companies are hurt by marriage because the married premium is lower than the combined premiums for individual policies is debatable
1. a small fraction that has recently run up large medical bills
2.credit history means nothing if one spouses job is providing the insurance for both and therefore require no or minimal payments from the receivers.
3. if a company is paying the premiums and the spouse is also recieving benefits with little or no increase in the payments by the company then the insurance company gets screwed.
even if it the tiniest portion of the population it doesnt matter. medical costs are expensive to say the least, running into hundreds of thousadns of dollars for a lot of people. this isnt just for paper cuts, these policies usually cover people long after the have retired and are aged. they dont want to pay it.
stop trying to build an argument based on something you found in google. you sound like a ninny.
my point i snot people who insure themselves. of course premiums will be more for added people. how many people get health care that way? alot less than through thier place of employment.
Galt Wrote:and who is appointed judge of the "stupid shit" board that stands at the door of every hospital making that decision?
Actually, people who have health insurance are more inclined to go see a doctor for stupid shit because they don't have to pay for it.
Galt Wrote:There are too few things in this country that are left to be decided upon by the states. Especially given that the basic tenet this country was founded upon was less power to the central government due to empowered state and local governments
Because we, as a society, have moved away from that principal, so that there are people out there who are like "well, if it's ok in Mass, then why can't it be ok everywhere?" People think that if somethings the law in one place and it works, that it should be applied every, thinking that it will work. What starts to happen is that there's no longer any trial or error, no places to experiment with new legislature. I know that if we applied the same zoning and building laws everywhere, it would not work, because the zoning for fucking Wichita , Kansas doesn't work in NYC. But, that's what people think should be the case.
The will of the people in New York State is gonna be that gay marriage should be legal. That is not gonna be the will of the people in Alabama, and it would be wrong to tell that state what is right and what is wrong for their people when others are not citizens of that state.
There are things that the federal government don't need to concern themselves with, and we certainly don't need a spending bill devoted to promoting marriage, nor do we need any federal laws regarding marriage.
Galt Wrote:and who is appointed judge of the "stupid shit" board that stands at the door of every hospital making that decision?
I think a single question: Could it have been avoided, and did you knowingly do something risky. If so, it's on you. Like drugs. Drunk driving. Drinking if you're on medications that you ought not drink while taking them. That kind of thing. I don't think it would be very hard, on average, to tell what kind of medical problems have those origins.
Trickier would be things like complications from having kids. Kids born with substance-abuse defects.
The Jays Wrote:Galt Wrote:There are too few things in this country that are left to be decided upon by the states. Especially given that the basic tenet this country was founded upon was less power to the central government due to empowered state and local governments
Because we, as a society, have moved away from that principal, so that there are people out there who are like "well, if it's ok in Mass, then why can't it be ok everywhere?" People think that if somethings the law in one place and it works, that it should be applied every, thinking that it will work. What starts to happen is that there's no longer any trial or error, no places to experiment with new legislature. I know that if we applied the same zoning and building laws everywhere, it would not work, because the zoning for fucking Wichita , Kansas doesn't work in NYC. But, that's what people think should be the case.
The will of the people in New York State is gonna be that gay marriage should be legal. That is not gonna be the will of the people in Alabama, and it would be wrong to tell that state what is right and what is wrong for their people when others are not citizens of that state.
There are things that the federal government don't need to concern themselves with, and we certainly don't need a spending bill devoted to promoting marriage, nor do we need any federal laws regarding marriage.
which is why the only thing i agree with republicans about is returning more power to the state governments and away from the federal government
That's a pretty big thing. Like disbanding or seriously weakening many of the social programs, from the core republican belief that most of what the government does should be handled by the states.
Black Lazerus Wrote:you can never argue with the 3 point rebuttal
That's the beauty of it. There is no coming back from a well founded argument. Sure, you can answer each assertion, but when there's three, you only appear to be floundering.
Sometimes, it's best to admit defeat and spend your time rebuilding for the next battle. At least it's better than slapping back like a bitch when you're getting pummeled(sp?) with hooks and jabs.
I was just hearing on Michael Savage that California actually has a law on the books that states that marriage occurs between and unmarried man and woman above the age of 18, and only that. So, what San Francisco is doing is actually breaking the law, a criminal act. If the will of the people stipulated a law that says that the state of California only recoginzes marriage as being a union between man and woman, then that's that. You can't break the law just because you don't agree with the law.
The only law I recognize is gravity.