RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tazzygirl -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 6:06:30 PM)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-485790/Married-couples-healthier-live-longer--children.html




TheHeretic -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 9:49:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Asherdelampyr

Sounds like a good start, lets hope it continues



       Is it really a good start?  Or is it a symbolic scrap?




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 9:50:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

quote:

so unless you are among the "favored" its questionable

No, "favored" should also question the system; it could be immoral for some.
quote:

If you truly believe in a world where every human being is completely self-sufficient, I respectfully suggest you buy an axe, a rifle, and a box of matches and head for the mountains instead of posting on an internet partially funded by my tax dollars and created by people who were partially educated with my tax dollars. The cost of living in a civilized society is that individuals pay out of their own pocket for services that are considered essential to the common good. If this concept goes so completely against your principles, why not have the courage of your convictions and reject those aspects of it that benefit you, as well as those you find inconvenient?


This is again criticism  that (without any base) assumes I have certain views. I am talking only about certain things (like supporting couples at the expense of singles) without questioning the rationale. I am not against using tax dollars for things clearly considered essential to the common good.



Oh. OK. Yeah, I think you're right, I did misunderstand your position. The post you made regarding people paying to educate their own children led me to believe you were taking a more radical libertarian stance than you apparently intended. I'm sorry about that; I didn't mean to misjudge you.




DomKen -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 9:51:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Asherdelampyr

Sounds like a good start, lets hope it continues



       Is it really a good start?  Or is it a symbolic scrap?

Are you unaware that DOMA prevents virtually all benefits from being extended to same sex partners?




TheHeretic -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 10:49:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Asherdelampyr

Sounds like a good start, lets hope it continues



      Is it really a good start?  Or is it a symbolic scrap?

Are you unaware that DOMA prevents virtually all benefits from being extended to same sex partners?


       If this was to me, the answer is no.  From a dispassionate point of view, these were scraps.  Someone more emotionally invested in the issue might call it a bitch-slap instead.




DomImus -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/21/2009 3:00:56 PM)

It's a shame for all of those opposite sex domestic partners. Never a clearer case of sexual orientation discrimination have I ever seen. Offer domestic partner coverage across the board or don't offer it, I say.




rulemylife -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/21/2009 3:34:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

It's a shame for all of those opposite sex domestic partners. Never a clearer case of sexual orientation discrimination have I ever seen. Offer domestic partner coverage across the board or don't offer it, I say.


Can opposite-sex domestic partners get married and receive those benefits?

Can same-sex domestic partners get married and receive those benefits?

So if you want to really make things even across the board then what is the obvious solution?




DomKen -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/21/2009 5:35:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Asherdelampyr

Sounds like a good start, lets hope it continues



      Is it really a good start?  Or is it a symbolic scrap?

Are you unaware that DOMA prevents virtually all benefits from being extended to same sex partners?


       If this was to me, the answer is no.  From a dispassionate point of view, these were scraps.  Someone more emotionally invested in the issue might call it a bitch-slap instead.

I'm sorry try that again. Without resorting the some sort of GWB 'I only have to obey the laws i like' crap how coul;d Obama order benefits in violation of DOMA?




Vendaval -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/21/2009 5:40:51 PM)

Fast Reply -

For those wondering about the acronym "DOMA" the meaning is Defense of Marriage Act, circa 1996.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act




FatDomDaddy -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/23/2009 8:02:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Asherdelampyr

Sounds like a good start, lets hope it continues



      Is it really a good start?  Or is it a symbolic scrap?

Are you unaware that DOMA prevents virtually all benefits from being extended to same sex partners?


       If this was to me, the answer is no.  From a dispassionate point of view, these were scraps.  Someone more emotionally invested in the issue might call it a bitch-slap instead.

I'm sorry try that again. Without resorting the some sort of GWB 'I only have to obey the laws i like' crap how coul;d Obama order benefits in violation of DOMA?



Oh I don't know Ken... maybe by using his office to pressure both Houses of Congress, where his part has clear majorities to repeal DOMA???

Of couse why actually DO something when SAYING you are going to try will work just as well?

And without health insurance, its all a show game anyway.




DomKen -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/23/2009 8:46:54 PM)

Maybe you missed him calling for precisely that when he announced these benfits? Or maybe you're ignoring it for some reason?




TheHeretic -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/23/2009 9:14:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Without resorting the some sort of GWB 'I only have to obey the laws i like' crap how coul;d Obama order benefits in violation of DOMA?



         Why do you assume I would have a problem with him using the Presidential steel-toed boots on the ass of the issue?  Love how you try to spin the hole in your argument, though.  [:D]

     




DomKen -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/23/2009 11:33:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Without resorting the some sort of GWB 'I only have to obey the laws i like' crap how coul;d Obama order benefits in violation of DOMA?



         Why do you assume I would have a problem with him using the Presidential steel-toed boots on the ass of the issue?  Love how you try to spin the hole in your argument, though.  [:D]

     

Because I assumed you were in favor of the rule of law. I see now that you prefer despotic rule. Might I suggest moving to North Korea or Iran? The USA has recovered from its unfortunate flirtation with that.




TheHeretic -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/24/2009 6:53:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The USA has recovered from its unfortunate flirtation with that.



      Ken, we have elected a man who never held any power.  Are you going to want ketchup with that statement, somewhere down the road, or do you prefer barbecue sauce?

     Those big boots could do a lot, within the hard limits.  He just doesn't care enough to kick with them.




LaTigresse -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/24/2009 9:15:19 AM)

Because the last moron that went around kicking at everything and everyone he disagreed with.......did such a stellar job.

I am not thrilled with the change, simply because it is still too limiting and discriminatory, but it is a step in the right direction.

As for bitching about paying for other's health insurance.....as a former expert in health insurance.......the discussion here is far too simplistic. If you wish to pay for what you use/need, then have a major claim, your rates will skyrocket to cover the cost of insuring you individually.

Example, let's say I pay, on average $240.00 a month for health insurance for 20 years. That is $ 57,600.00 total. I get cancer and need surgery and ongoing radiation, drugs, etc. The grand total of that cancer treatment cost was ohhhhhhh, let's lowball it, $500,000.00. Now they have to raise my rates dramatically to recoup their loss. And, I will only be working for another15 years (if my cancer does not come back and I can) Of course I can afford  to pay the insurance company $442,400.00 over those next 15 years. Not to mention, they admin costs the insurance company accrued in managing my account.

So, still want to pay for ONLY what you personally use, rather than spreading the cost/risk?

Cuz, yanno, I am healthy and I would LOVE to get a big fat refund at the point I stop paying my health insurance premiums, for all the money the insurance company did not have to pay on on me.




FatDomDaddy -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/24/2009 3:53:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Maybe you missed him calling for precisely that when he announced these benfits? Or maybe you're ignoring it for some reason?


Yet I do not see him publicly campaigning for it and pounding the issue. He's the President... if he wanted too he could force the issue to repeal DOMA before the summer recess, even with everything else he has on his plate. Obama and The Democrats can do this without ONE Republican vote...

So why won't they???






Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125