Do you agree or disagree that it is discrimination based on sexual identity to dent homosexuals equal access to health insurance as heterosexuals ?
yes it is discrimination
no it is not discrimination
Do you agree or disagree that it is discrimination based on sexual identity to dent homosexuals equal access to health insurance as heterosexuals ?
Example of discrimination (Imho):
the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590





I can't answer the poll. Whom is it exactly who is doing the denying? The government or the insurance company.
If its the latter, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but insurance companies do sexual discrimination (and age discrimination, and race discrimination, and geographical discrimination, and family medical history discrimination) all the time. Its called risk classification.
Former SCJ now in rehab.
An insurance company who denies a group of people who share nothing in common except for their sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.. is guilty of practicing discrimination or "risk classification" or whatever you want to call it. I'd like to hear a reasonable argument FOR risk classification, particularly when it comes to sexual orientation, ethnicity, and geographical discrimination.
Why not just treat each person as an individual case and not blow them off b/c they're too gay or too *insert ethnicity here*.
I think the only "classification" I can justify in good faith is family history health classification.
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear....I was talking about people in the general public who feel that homosexuals do not deserve equal access to insurance as heterosexuals.Originally Posted by doc-catfish
Risk is realitive to an individuals behavior ofcourse~ as in a heterosexual who leads a high risk lifestyle is higher than a homosexual who leads a low risk one and vs vrs.
The question is meant gather opinons on those people who feel that homosexuals as a whole do not deserve equal access regardless of risk or behavior. Example would be agreeing that it is fair to deny coverage to a low risk behavior homosexual but accept high risk heterosexuals.
Does that help ? Please vote Doc...the more opinions shared the better picture we will have of what the general opinion is here on SW![]()
Example of discrimination (Imho):
the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590




I personally feel that health insurance should be based on risk factor and sexual orientation should have nothing to do with it. For example regarding sex risk factor ask about number sexual partners in a yr and usage of protection vs. asking sexual orientation.
I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them.





Well i dont think its legal to do it by ethnic group???Originally Posted by Amethyst
is it??
But try this,its it ok to charge smokers more then a non smoker??
Im a smoker so im not crazy about it,but i understand why im tossed in as a "High risk classifacation".
If your saying the homosexual community isnt a "High"risk group,then it would be a different story,but they are,so its not.
Every single homosexual is high risk huh ?Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
No discrimination there at all , right![]()
ps are you going to vote in the poll ? Or are you afraid to have your opinion posted in a place that you can't delete it and the whole site can see where you stand ? You have a right to your opinion even if some of us disagree so why not let it be known![]()
Last edited by Hello~Kitty; 05-10-2005 at 12:41 PM.
Example of discrimination (Imho):
the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590





I didnt say that every homosexual is a high risk.Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
Are you saying that the homosexual community as a whole isnt a high risk group??
If your going to balk at the gays for being called "High Risk"(when they are,a proven fact)why dont you cry wolf as loud for the smokers who are classified as high risk also(and they are to,also a proven fact)???





lolOriginally Posted by Hello~Kitty
Do you really think i hide my honest opinions from this forum,regardless of how it may make me look or who its going to piss off???
Cmon now.![]()
If you have any doubts about how i feel and why,on any topic,all ya gotta do is ask me,just dont freek when ya dont get the answers you want.
Belive it or not,I have learned alot from your perspective on a few issues and sometimes almost enjoy some of your positions.![]()
I try to avoid your polls because they always seem to be trick questions in need of "Line item Vetos"
You ask alot of questions in black and white on your polls about issues that have alot of gray areas.I dont know why most of your polls dont really get taken,i just know thats why i dont really vote on them.
Gotta ask: Kitty, do you ever broach these big, challenging topics at the SC? Frankly, I think there's a category of custy who'd dig a heated debate before--or even in the midst of--a LD. Or maybe, just maybe, I'm insane.
yup that's right...it's a persons individual behavior that makes them high/low risk not their sexual identity.Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
ahahahah.... funny really because my polls are not even one day old yet so how can you say they don't really get taken/answered !why most of your polls dont really get taken
ChicagoEditor ~ lol , ya baby you're insane ! Just kiddingNo ,I don't act like this at work as I doubt it would be a moneymaker.... but I'm a PoliSci major so these kinds of things are my cup of tea off the clock...and actually I use posts from here in a discussion group at school.
Example of discrimination (Imho):
the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590





<<wavin to all the school kids>>Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
Stay in school,dont do drugs!![]()





Is it discrimination? yes
But private insurers should be as discriminating as they want to. Say way they might discriminate against football players and or other potential risk that isn't their area of expertise. Other companies might specialize in such areas.
It should be legal to discriminate unlimitedly, as long as you are doing it on your own hook. When it comes to governmetn discrimination however, the bureaucrat doing the discriminating isn't paying for his discrimination, the public has to pick up the tab
You can't love something you think is flawless - me
Will definitely buy a lecture or two from HK when I'm next in her town and near her club. Will I have to study current events first? God damn. Anyhow, where are you based, HK?Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty





I think that gays should have a completely equal right to health insurance coverage. I think that gays should have equal right to pay insurance premiums commeasurate with their health risks statistics, as smokers are required to do. I do not think that gays deserve a special privelege of having their higher health risk factor caused health insurance premiums subsidized by charging the general population higher insurance rates across the board.
Kitty,
I will consider your argument when you tell your auto insurance company you want to pay the same insurance rates as a male your age, and cut them a check for all the lower insurance rates than males you have received since you got your driver license. And paid the male premium on any life insurance policy you might have. I will even think of it if you pay the average of the two rates.
But the flaw in your so called argument is that not all homosexual persons live a high or higher risk lifestyle just as not all heterosexuals live a lower or low risk lifestyle............. plus no where have I seen that gays want rates not based on idvidual risk rates. Everytime you write "subsidized by charging the general population higher insurance rates" you are posting a lie. Show me anywhere that says gays refuse to pay premiums based on their indvidual risk the way hetersexuals do.... You can't because you made it up in your head. All homosexuals are asking for is equal treatment... the same as heterosexuals which are based on individual risk. "Special rights" is a complete homophobic fabrication. I believe the term was coined by the "Moral Majority" which everyone knows hate gays. The term is the epitome of propganda. People who use it look like homophobes. If one is not homophobic then they don't buy into the term, it is that simple.Originally Posted by Melonie
Why do insist on making your risk judgements based on a persons sexual identity instead of the persons behavior ?
Let me ask you this : do you think that a homosexual person who is practicing safe sex in a monogoumous relationship should be charged more than a heterosexual who has multiply partners and does not use condoms ?
Yes or No?
Should a smoker with numerous breast enhancements (which pose a health risk of their own such as cancers, damaged tissue/nerves and auto immune disease to name a few ) as well previous drug use should be charged more or less than a homosexual who ~ does not smoke, has not used drugs and has never had any foriegn objects placed into their bodies. And lets say that both people practice safe sex with very limited partners who are HIV neg and have the current tests to prove it.
Who do you see as being a higher risk ?
Why is that you seem to take the position that all heterosexuals no matter what their lifestyle are a lower risk than all homosexuals no matter what their lifestyle ?
PS- you can tell whoever it is ( you?) to stop sending the hate emails..it's getting old...and I shouldn't have to change my email just because I disagree with you, that's fucked upKeep it on the boards please.
Last edited by Hello~Kitty; 05-10-2005 at 06:20 PM.
Example of discrimination (Imho):
the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590
I have no problem with paying the same rates as a guy my age actually .... but tell me how the "pay back" comments apply to health insurance ? Are saying that one person should pay back every single other person who has coverage with the same company ?Originally Posted by montythegeek
Do you understand how absurd that it ?
I might humor the idea if you said one person pay the same from now on as the other and pay back the one person the difference..... but one person pay back every single other person..... Come on be reasonable....wait you oppose equal rights for gays, that means you can't be reasonableJust kidding , well sort of anyway !
Last edited by Hello~Kitty; 05-10-2005 at 06:05 PM.
Example of discrimination (Imho):
the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590





Check insurance law in California, New York and most other states. Except for smokers, 'redlining' of gays, blacks, or any other subgroups based on actuarial risk factors in regard to health and life insurance is prohibited. It's not so much a matter of gays being asked to pay higher rates and refusing, it's a matter of the law saying that insurance companies can't even ask. If a gay or legally married gay spouse are part of an employer's or civil service or union contract group insurance plan, they MUST be covered the same as every other employee and spouse regardless of risk factors as long as they don't have a pre-existing condition, and at the same insurance rates (unless of course they are smokers too). If a gay or legally married gay spouse seek private insurance coverage, however, these group insurance laws doesn't apply per se and the insurance premiums will be astronomical.Everytime you write "subsidized by charging the general population higher insurance rates" you are posting a lie. Show me anywhere that says gays refuse to pay premiums based on their indvidual risk the way hetersexuals do. You can't because you made it up in your head.
that same 'flaw' applies to every male driver under age 25 who seeks auto insurance, every inner city property owner who seeks homeowner's insurance etc. where a significant differential in risk factors has been demonstrated for the entire group, but where individual occurrences may go against the 'rule' (but are required to pay higher premiums nonetheless). Not every teenage boy is a crazy driver, but statistically speaking teenage boys are 3 times more likely to be involved in a car accident as girls the same age. Not every inner city homeowner will have his property broken into or vandalized or shot up, but it is 5 times more likely to happen in the inner city than to a home in the suburbs. Not every gay person will develop AIDS, but it is 20 times more likely to happen than in the general US population.But the flaw in your so called argument is that not all homosexual persons live a high or higher risk lifestyle just as not all heterosexuals live a lower or low risk lifestyle



I agree. No arguement.





Fuckin Homophobe!!!!!Originally Posted by Hef
![]()



Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
Queers are cool. Somebody has to make stripper clothes.![]()




Usually it ends up being an old lady that custom makes stripper clothingMaybe her gay son picks the fabric.
I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them.



The girls here have Matthew, and he's one hell of a seamstress.Originally Posted by Muyaha
The point that people keep missing is this (and I'll quote HelloKitty):
I am a bisexual woman who, has always practiced safer sex and been in monogamous, committed relationships. I've never contracted an STD and I am tested for HIV & STDs bi-annually because I'm anal like that. Some of my heterosexual acquaintences(sp) (and most of my co-workers) - we'll call them Group A - do NOT practice safe sex or monogamy and get tested only when something itches or smells funny or it's time to make their quarterly trip to the abortion clinic. I also have bi and gay friends (Group B) who do the same (minus abortion clinic).not all homosexual persons live a high or higher risk lifestyle just as not all heterosexuals live a lower or low risk lifestyle.............
So when purchasing health insurance, why should I be forced to pay higher rates than Group A or the same as Group B? I have no history of promiscuity or disease and have a nice, pristine medical history. Shouldn't Groups A & B pay the same amount? Or do I continue to get punished because of my sexual orientation?
As for the auto insurance comparison, I'll gladly pay the same amount as any man who has the same driving history as I do, similar vehicle type, and who lives & drives in a similar area as I do.
Bookmarks