Okay, we've got you halfway there; now to address the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
You've unintentionally made an excellent point with an incorrect observation. In fact, smokers and skydivers DO use existing law and contracts regarding married dependent coverage to avoid having to pay higher insurance premiums themselves and shifting those very significant insurance costs associated with their high risks to everybody else. Offering group insurance to gay spouses would be no different than the already existing practice of offering group rate coverage to straight spouses who are smokers, skydivers or otherwise high risk. Therefore, we've eliminated the argument that it wouldn't be fair because other high-risk dependents aren't doing it. They are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
People who took the same financial attitude toward slave ownership were against abolishing it. The relevant issue was one of civil rights for a group of people who were denied the same rights others had. I really don't see the financial argument as being germane to the issues of either slavery or gay marriage, but I'm trying to provide at least some reasons other than civil rights to view the financial argument against gay marriage as weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
The operative word in your assertion is directly. You haven't claimed that the cost of Medicaid taxes don't put people out of work. What you could have said is that it's not so visibly obvious who is put out of work by this siphoning of business investment and consumer spending money to Medicaid. Therefore, maybe some people feel better about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
As far as public health coverage such that private employers don't have to pick up astronomical AIDS costs, once again, you've unintentionally provided the answer to your own concerns. I know of nothing in the law stopping group health plans from setting yearly or lifetime limits on coverage for policy holders. A lifetime limit could apply to individuals across the board equally, be they a two-packs-a-day straight spouse with lung cancer, an HIV-positive gay spouse, or a bisexual spouse with connective tissue disease caused by too many elective cosmetic surgeries. Once a dependent hit the limit, Medicare would become primary coverage for the dependent because, with that type of chronic condition, they're likely to qualify for Medicare as disabled. Ta da! Just what you asked for.
-Ev
