The Insurance aspect?

[robtex]

If companies did offer insurance to gay couples I'm sure they would charge more then for heterosexual couples, just for the fact that aids runs higher among the gay community.

Actually if you have Aids you are not insurable at all. Same with HIV. I personally am not aware of underwriting guidelines that factor in sexual preference.

 

[jeffrey]

Actually if you have Aids you are not insurable at all. Same with HIV. I personally am not aware of underwriting guidelines that factor in sexual preference.

I wouldn't think you would be. I'm curious what the % is now of new cases of HIV and Aids between heterosexual compared to homosexual.

 

[Booko]

I wouldn't think you would be. I'm curious what the % is now of new cases of HIV and Aids between heterosexual compared to homosexual.

It's at times like this I miss the members of my Baha'i community who work for the CDC. There was a time I could've gotten an answer to this question in a few minutes. Ah well, they're off doing things like researching HIV in Africa and the Far East, and I don't have emails.

I did a little looking, and did find this, though. This article doesn't address your question, but raises some related ones.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7032358/

Oh, btw, do NOT EVER EVER Google on "HIV rates homosexual." All you get is a bunch of kooky "religious" websites and their awful misinformation. :149:

 

[BruceDLimber]

FWIW, Booko, if you have CDC email addresses for them, these may still work even if they're over there!

Bruce

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Gloria, if you don't like health insurance don't buy any. Instead ask the goverment to completely subsidize you when you go to the emergancy room. As a matter of fact it may be best to elimatinate all health insurance and we can spread the risk equally amount all tax-payers for people going to the hospital....oh wait......that would be ... insurance......goverment monopolized insurance.

(sarcasm)Oh Rob, How I love it when people superimpose meaning into my post and make assumptions about my personal life based on my post.(/sarcasm) You see, I am what some hospital workers have called the "working poor class". I make too much money for any form of government subsudized health insurance, which makes up a pretty big percentage of people in the U.S. and since the place I work for doesn't provide health insurance and despite the fact that I work two jobs and my wife works one just so we could pay the bills and carry that wonderfull car insurance which we have yet to make a claim on, for us to attempt to carry health insurance for us and our children, which I have looked into, would mean major cutbacks in just the bare necessities. Have you seen how high gas is lately? So, as it turns out we are still paying the hospital bills from my oldest boy's broken leg due to playing soccer last year with some friends (before you make more assumtions, this was not some league he was in, we can't afford that) and my youngest son's ear infections and finger injuries from playing on a friend's skateboard. You're lucky my wife isn't typing this post. She probably would've posted some things that probably would've gotten this post deleted and given me some warning points. As far as government subsudized health insurance goes, I sure hope you can show where I proposed that in the OP. All I remember doing was asking a question about how many countries that have recognized same sex marriages have government subsudized health insurance which you have conventienly dodged despite the fact that I also insinuated in the OP that I didn't have knowledge of which is why I asked a question instead of of making a statement.

If you give the goverment a monopoly on the insurance industry everyone loses. The competition between insurance companies is the only check and balance against even higher rates. Counteries in europe that do subdize medicine have tax rates between 50-70 %. Subsidizing medicine does not work there and it would not work here. Creating an intentional monopoly by the goverment to be the only carrier of insurance is playing with fire. The fact that companies compete for rates is a large factor in making them fair.

(LOL) why don't you do me a favor and look up rates on health insurance for a four person family and post them, then I will post my net income and other bills so we can see what percentage of my income health insurance would take. After that lets just hope nothing major happens to me so that we won't have to carry life insurance and my family won't have to carry the financial burden on rop of everything else. While you are doint the research you may want to take into consideration that my wife had thyroid cancer and had to have her thyroid removed and needs to take synthroid for the rest of her life along with regular checkups to make sure she doesn't have cancer anywhere else. Being as how this is what insurance companies call a prexistent condition, good luck finding an insurance company that will cover this or any type of reoccurring cancer she may have in the future so it looks like we will have to carry the bills for that one. As far as "fair" "competing rates" of insurance companies goes, I can't help but wonder how serious of an issue you think ED, restless leg syndrome, or digger the dramaniphite is? All the health industry has shown, especially as of late, is a sensationable lust for more money without a care in the world for real health issues. With all the scientific prowess of our day and age, the biggest problems that are dealt with are these laughable conditions that people have lived with for years. Just turn on your television to see if it is true. Meanwhile, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The health industry as a whole is a complete joke and any attempt to defend it comes across as ignorant and even more absurd. You see rob, I live in the real world where I and my wife have to work just for our familie's survival.

Because health and life insurance are not mandatory (as opposed to auto insurance) you personally are under no obligation to own or have any but I for one don't feel a need, if you are financially capable, of bailing you because you want to free-load off the health system. Personally, I would go as far as to say that is immoral if you are capable of having insurance and chose not to own any and than expect "free medical health care."

Can you please post where in the OP that this was propposed or is this more superimposing meaning into my post and assumptions upon my personal life again?

The christians have passed laws in many states including Texas, that bar insurance companies from selling insurance to same sex couples by making it spouse insurance only applicable in marriage. It has been an intentional and well thought out act and a hate crime, in my eyes. The fact of the matter is that it cuts into the market share of life and health companies and is not in the interest of any insurance company but apparently is in the best interest of Christians.

All this point does is acknowledge that Insurance does indeed play a much more major role in this issue, which is all I was trying to get at, and you have managed a way to divert it into a religious oppression issue. I wonder how poligamists feel about this issue. There are plenty of books out there calling human monogamy unnatural. Don't you think they should have a voice in this also?

For any Christian to openly and flippany propose propoganda that the insurance industry as out to get the homosexual community and than belong than belong to an organization (which is most all christian orgainazations) that does not openly promote same-sex relationship, both finacialy and emotionally is both dishonest and morally repugnant.

That is not what I propposed but what you have superimpossed into my post. All I proposed was that insurance companies are a scam and asked how much of a role insurance plays in the same sex marriage issue. If I could put into words how morally repugnat and dishonest your attack upon my persoanl life and superimposing meaning into my post due to some personal vendetta you have against christianity was, trust me rob, I would.

Incidently, I notice you forgot to post the link(s) of insurance carriers who are opposed to gay marriage.

And I noticed how you have conveniently forgotten to post links to websites for insurance carriers that are just so upset at those oppressive Christians for making it impossible to give more discounts out.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[PureX]

If you give the government a monopoly on the insurance industry everyone loses.

It seems that most of the nations of the world disagree with you:

Public systems around the world

In Australia the current system, known as Medicare, was instituted in 1984. It coexists with a private health system. Currently, the tax levy system of funding Medicare has led to a severe revenue shortfall, with increased costs to patients. This has triggered reforms to the scheme by the Howard government. Many critics claim that these reforms are in fact a move away from the principle of universal health care.

Canada has a federally-sponsored, publicly funded Medicare system. Each province may opt out, though none currently do. Canada's system is known as a single payer system, where basic services are provided by private doctors, with the entire fee paid for by the government at the same rate. Other areas of health care, such as dentistry and optometry, are wholly private. (As a side note, I live near Canada and visit there often, and am told by Canadians that they are very happy with their medical system over all.)

Cuba has a wholly government-controlled system that consumes a large proportion of the nation's GDP. The system does work on a for profit basis in treating patients from abroad. Cuba attracts patients mostly from Latin America and Eastern Europe by offering care of comparable quality to a developed nation but at much lower prices. While the government system is free to all, patients frequently pay out of pocket for drugs that are in short supply in the public system.

In Finland, the publicly funded medical system is funded by taxation and every citizen has state-funded health insurance. The system is comprehensive and compulsory, like in Sweden, and a small patient fee is also taken.

In France, most doctors remain in private practice; there are both private and public hospitals. Social Security consists of several public organizations, distinct from the state government, with separate budgets that refunds patients for care in both private and public facilities. It generally refunds patients 70% of most health care costs, and 100% in case of costly or long-term ailments. Supplemental coverage may be bought from private insurers, most of them nonprofit, mutual insurers. Until recently, social security coverage was restricted to those who contributed to social security (generally, workers or retirees), excluding some poor segments of the population; the government of Lionel Jospin put into place the "universal health coverage". The majority of French doctors are in private practice. In some systems, patients can also take private health insurance, but choose to receive care at public hospitals, if allowed by the private insurer.

In Ghana, most health care is provided by the government, but hospitals and clinics run by religious groups also play an important role. Some for profit clinics exist, but they provide less than 2% of health services. Health care is very variable through the country. The major urban centers are well served, but rural areas often have no modern health care. Patients in these areas either rely on traditional medicine or travel great distances for care.
In Hong Kong, both private and public clinics are common, while public hospitals account for the majority of the market.

In Israel, the publicly funded medical system is universal and compulsory. Payment for the services are shared by labor unions and the government.

In the Netherlands, a system of standardized and mandatory health insurance is in place, meant to encourage competition between healthcare providers and insurers. The insurance policies are paid for through a system of levies and subsidies as well as a premium paid by the insured, from which children under 18 are exempt.

In New Zealand hospitals are public and treat citizens or permanent residents free of charge and are managed by District Health Boards. Under the current Labour coalition governments, 1999 - present, there are plans to make primary health care available free of charge. At present government subsidies exist in health care. This system is funded by taxes. The New Zealand government agency PHARMAC subsides certain pharmaceuticals depending upon their category. Co-payments exist however these are ignored if the user has a community health services card or high user health card.

In South Africa, parallel private and public systems exist. The public system serves the vast majority of the population, but is chronically underfunded and understaffed. The wealthiest 20% of the population uses the private system and are far better served.

In Sweden, the publicly funded medical system is comprehensive and compulsory. Physician and hospital services take a small patient fee, but their services are funded through the taxation scheme of the County Councils of Sweden.

In 1948, the United Kingdom passed the National Health Service Act that provided free physician and hospital services to all people resident in the United Kingdom. Most doctors and nurses are on contracts, and receive salaries, a fixed fee for each patient assigned, and enhanced payments for specialized treatments or skills. The National Health Service has been amended from time to time, but is largely intact. Around 86% of prescriptions are provided free. Prescriptions are provided free to people who satisfy certain criteria such as low income or permanent disabilities. People that pay for prescriptions do not pay the full cost. For example, in 2004 most people in will pay a flat fee of £6.40 (€9.64, US$11.76) for a single drug prescription regardless of the cost (average cost to the health service was £11.10--about €16.70, US$20.40--in 2002). (Charges are lower in Wales, and the administration there is committed to their eventual elimination.) Funding comes from a hypothecated health insurance tax and from general taxation. Private health services are also available.

The United States has been virtually alone among developed nations in not implementing a universal healthcare system. However, the U.S. health system does have significant publicly funded components. Medicare and Medicaid coverage is financed from taxation, but care is generally provided by privately owned hospitals or physicians in private practice. Medicare is a federal government program providing coverage to people age 65 or older. Medicaid is a federal and state program providing coverage to low-income and disabled persons. The Department of Veterans Affairs directly provides health care to U.S. military veterans through a nationwide network of government hospitals. However, a significant number of people exist who do not obtain health insurance through their employer, are unable to afford individual coverage or elect not to purchase it, and are not elderly or poor enough to qualify for Medicare or Medicaid coverage. Currently, it is estimated that 17% of the U.S. population is uninsured. A few states have taken serious steps toward universal health care coverage, most notably Minnesota and Massachusetts. Other states, while not attempting to insure all of their residents, cover large numbers of people by reimbursing hospitals and other health-care providers using what is generally characterized as a charity care scheme; New Jersey is perhaps the best example of a state that employs the latter strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly-funded_medicine

"Free enterprise competition" doesn't work with essential necessities, like health care, because the buyer doesn't have the option not to buy. This is why most countries have socialized some goods and services, as has the united states. Unfortunately, the U.S. has gone through a recent fad of "deregulation" of these essential services which have resulted in disaster. Health care is one instance, though it is not fully deregulated, and the privatization of municipal gas and electrical grids is another. And the reason for these disasters is obvious, when the buyer doesn't have the
option not to buy, then the sellers have an automatic monopoly, and know it. In the case of health care there are "competitors", but in an emergency, people don't have the option of shopping around for the best price. And in the case of municipal grids, there are no competitors, because the grids are too expensive to duplicate.

"Free enterprise" works fine for most things, but there are some essential goods and services that can't be left to the whims of the open market. Health care and municipal utilities are an example. Most other nations have recognized this and have taken steps to accommodate this reality.

 

[Booko]

"Free enterprise competition" doesn't work with essential necessities, like health care, because the buyer doesn't have the option not to buy. This is why most countries have socialized some goods and services, as has the united states. Unfortunately, the U.S. has gone through a recent fad of "deregulation" of these essential services which have resulted in disaster. Health care is one instance, though it is not fully deregulated, and the privatization of municipal gas and electrical grids is another. And the reason for these disasters is obvious, when the buyer doesn't have the option not to buy, then the sellers have an automatic monopoly, and know it. In the case of health care there are "competitors", but in an emergency, people don't have the option of shopping around for the best price. And in the case of municipal grids, there are no competitors, because the grids are too expensive to duplicate.

"Free enterprise" works fine for most things, but there are some essential goods and services that can't be left to the whims of the open market. Health care and municipal utilities are an example. Most other nations have recognized this and have taken steps to accommodate this reality.

Another issue with our health care is our view that health care is a product to be sold rather than a resource to be used wisely.

When we treat health care as a "product" of course the impetus is to sell more "product" to make more profit. This is one of the factors in rising health care costs, and one that is rarely talked about.

From my pov, I am terribly tired of hearing about "rationing" every time someone suggests the possibility of publically-funded health care.

Health care is *already* rationed. Ask anyone with an HMO. Ask anyone who has had the least health care issue but has no ability to purchase group insurance.

We've had to make our choices very carefully in what health care options we use, because we know that one misstep and we will not be able to get insurance on our own. We choose health care that stays off the insurance companies' radar screen. Sometimes that means we get to stay sick longer, or just put up with problems that are easily remedied with a month's worth of medicine.

Now that my husband has group insurance, we are on a PPO. All fine and good. And I pray like mad the kids don't get sick after hours or while we are out of town, because then we will be paying bucketloads out of pocket, despite being "insured."