The costs of gay healthcare are unproportionally high, insisting on it means trying to get an unproportional share of resources.
Please would you explain why they would be higher if gays were legally married. Don't they have healthcare cover anyway? Aren't their treatments already being paid for in that way? I don't understand what difference it would make from that point of view. Thanks
posted on 03/17/2004 1:00:34 PM PST
Hello, new FR member. I notice that this is the only comment you have made on FR so far.
Here is my explanation: If someone is employed by a business that provides healthcare benefits, said employee is paying for some of that with his own money. If said employee has a wife or husband, then the insurance benefits are spread to said spouse, often with not much more money paid out by said employee.
Since a much higher percentage of homosexuals have AIDS, which can cost between $12k up to $17K a year (or more, with complications), and since homosexuals have much higher rates of various kinds of hepatitis, parasites, TB, many other venereal diseases, higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, mental problems, and so on - that means the people who are NOT homosexual will be helping pay the higher cost of the homosexual partners' health insurance.
Let homosexuals each pay their own health care insurance. Since they choose to engage in behavior that entails a higher cost, let each of them foot the bill. Why should people who don't engage in such dangerous behavior have to endure higher medical insurance rates so that homosexuals' pretend "spouses" can get covered?
posted on 03/17/2004 7:48:44 PM PST
by little jeremiah
(...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
Please would you explain why they would be higher if gays were legally married.
Your question has a false presupposition. The homosexual population as a result of practicing intrinsically disordered and depraved sexual activities has a shorter life span, and significantly more physical and psychological health risks etcetera etcetera.
This can not be a case of comparing apples to oranges -this must be a case of comparing activities e.g apples to apples... In discussing apples one must compare the majority in the barrel to those few that are rotten...
posted on 02/16/2005 1:50:32 PM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson