Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1154225072.974443.7870@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1154197658.260650.151090@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1154154539.821647.101160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1154120465.403672.109310@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1154102960.807291.161670@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in
message
news:gtlyg.4031$gF6.2109@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News w6ydnaAJFIVnDVTZnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@giganews.com,,
youngopinions@aol.com at youngopinions@aol.com, typed this:
It's this 'in-your-face' attitude that gays possess
Yeah, how dare they demand equal rights.
Correct.
How dare they demand equal protections based on an unequal
entity/unequal
relationship.
That is why they are demanding equal protections based on an
equal
entity/equal relationship.
Equal to what?
Equal to the relationships that currently have more rights than
theirs.
More rights you say.
Yes. Heterosexual couples have more rights than homosexual couples
because heterosexual couples have the right to get married.
Again, you are blinded by entities of two persons and it causes you to
discriminate against single persons.
I am not discriminating against anyone. And I am not the one that is
blind.
Thank you for showing that there are unequal protections on the
basis
of
marital status.
There aren't any such rights.
False statement.
Not on my part.
It is unequal rights based on sexual
orientation.
Wrong. If gays would learn to stop using that line, they coudl attain
some
of what they are seeking easier.
So, if they stop telling the truth, they can continue to live as second
class citizens, according to you.
There is no reason why homosexuals should stop pointing out that they
are being discriminated against, nor why they should stop working to
correct the inequality that they are subjected to. If they do not
continue to fight for their rights, they will never get them.
They should point out that they are being discriminated against based on
their beign single persons.
Since that is not why they are being discriminated against, that would
not be a very productive idea.
LOL! I see an idiot.
Then you need to stop looking in the mirror.
That is a much easier thing to show than to make up crap that so many
people in the USA are against.
You mean like the made up crap that you are against? It is simple to
point out that homosexuals are being discriminated against due to their
sexual orientation,
Not really. That is part of the lie that gays think is happening.
It is no lie that homosexuals are being discriminated against because
of their sexual orientation.
They are discriminated against because they are single in this marital
status thing.
Nope. Because they are homosexual.
There is no reason to think they are being discriminated against because
they are gay.
Yes, there is. When the law is written to keep them from getting
married, but allowed heterosexuals to get married, that is rather
obvious discrimination due to sexual orientation.
since it is true and actually exists.
The discrimination is against single persons. It isn't a gay issue.
There is no discrimination against single people. The discrimination
is against homosexuals.
It is difficult to show that single people are being discriminated
against due to marital status because they are not.
It is very easy to show that singles are discriminated against based on
their non-spousal status, their marital status.
And yet, you are completely unable to do that.
You have never been able to come up with any unequal
rights based on marital status.
*****.
Not on my part.
Check the tax tables.
Taxes are not rights, they are obligations.
The right to pay the same rate is a privelege a protection.
Nope.
Error.
Not on my part.
Not that I can see.
You are ignorant then.
Actually, you do not have a case.
There are many variation is the tax rate that people pay due to many
variable, including total income.
Which is no reason to treat persons differently.
Yes, it is. It is a reason to charge them differing rates. And since
everyone has to pay taxes, that means that they are not treated
differently.
People that do not make very much money do not pay any taxes, for example.
There are exemptions, which apply to everyone.
And which alter how much you pay.
Married and Single filing rates are unequal.
The difference between them is inconsequential, however.
*****, liar.
There are significant differences.
$4 is not a significant difference. Most people spend more than that
on lunch at work.
There is nothing that says
that they have to be equal for everyone.
*****, you liar.
The 14th Amendment says they MUST be equal for everyone.
No, it does not.
Yes, it does. There is no Constitutional authority to tax individuals
unequally.
They are not being taxed unequally. And since the government
determines the tax brackets, as well as enforced the law, they are the
ones that you need to contact. If you are advocating a flat fax,
people have been trying to get that passed for years without success.
Not that it would stay very flat for long. However, this is not the
newsgroup to discuss that.
Check insurance rates.
That has nothing to do with equal rights.
*****. liar.
I am not lying, and it is not *****.
You are lying, and equal rights are not in effect with regard to the tax
code or in insurance plans.
That is because it does not apply in the manner that you are
suggesting. The tax codes are not a right, that are an obligation, and
there is nothing in the Constitution that states that everyone is
required to have the same obligations. And insurance plans are run by
private companies that are not even subject to the Constitution in the
first place, and that are not required to treat everyone equally except
for offering everyone the same chance for insurance and offering
everyone with the same risk factors the same rate.
Insurance is sold by private companies,
The government sells insurance.
Most insurance is sold by private insurers.
Irrelevant. The Constitution is overrides any private activities.
But the Constitution ONLY applies to the government, and insurance
companies are NOT the government. Therefore that Constitution does not
apply to them.
Medicare charges premiums.
So do other insurance policies.
But, they charge unequal rates.
So what? That is their right.
You should see what CORBA charges. Do
YOU have to pay several hundred a month for insurance? There are
people that do just that.
So, they are being treated unequally.
Why don't you work to eliminate the unequal protections?
Because it is not unequal protection, and insurance companies have the
right to charge whatever they wish and the customer will pay. They are
not subject to the 14th Amendment.
They do not
discriminate on the basis of marital status, AFAIK. And, where is my
medicaid?
How should I know, and why should I care?
Because you propose that you are an egalitarian.
I am. However, you were asking where YOUR medicaid was. That is for
YOU to find out.
Try getting a job
You telling me what to do?
Making a suggestion, but that is also the general consensus of the
people that you reply to. You are the on that is a "tax leech", not
the people that you accuse of being so that have actual jobs.
so you don't have to depend on medicaid for your health insurance.
Why? Medicaid is the least expensive insurance plan.
And it is only for a limited number of people that cannot afford
anything else.
It is obvious that you are physically capable of working.
I was physically capable of working in 1993 when Duke Power Company
wrongfully terminated me.
There is no evidence that they wrongfully terminated you. Nobody is
willing to take your word on that, and you have produced no supporting
evidence. What's more, just because you lost a job in the past does
not mean that you cannot get a new job. THAT is what I am talking
about. You need to get a new job and stop dwelling on your past
failure.
And before you get into the bit about you being "entitled" to your
welfare checks, keep in mind that I know people that are for more
entitled to disability than you are, and they have professional, good
paying jobs.
Why do they need disability then if they have such jobs?
They took the jobs DESPITE their disability. Unlike you, they did not
give up. They overcame their limitation and took jobs that people
would normally not expect them to.
When did you forget the code that deals with such?
I didn't. The employer is required to make reasonable accommodations
for the needs of any employee that is disabled.
These are people that are blind or physically disabled,
So?
They are software engineers and work in related computer intensive
fields. That includes those that are blind.
It is obvious that you can see and you can type, so obviously you are
physically capable enough to get a decent paying job if you would just
get off your lazy rear and actually try to find one.
so there is no doubt that they could get such disability as you get.
The code does not allow paying disability income to disabled persons who are
gainfully employed and receive sufficient compensation above the legal
limit.
That is my point. They could get disability, and have far more right
to it than you, and they refuse to take it. They refused to give up on
themselves and on life. You have given up completely.
If they want to quit their jobs and go on SS that is their individual
option.
Why would they want to? Unlike you, they believe in working for their
pay.
How am I equally protected when others receive medicaid?
Because you all have the coverage that you pay for, and medicaid is not
just for you.
The protections are unequal.
But the right to it is, which is all the 14th Amendment is talking
about.
and they have the right to charge whatever the customer will
pay.
Wrong, idiot. You are lobbying against gays there.
Nope, idiot, I am arguing for equal rights for homosexuals.
Error. You are not lobbying for them to be equally protected.
Yes, I am. I am lobbying for them to have the same rights as
heterosexuals.
You act as if insurers have the right to charge them higher insurance
premiums.
Insurance carriers cannot charge homosexuals a higher premium just
because they are homosexual. There is no inherent risk factor
associated with sexual orientation, and I have never seen an insurance
form that asks about a person's sexual orientation in any case.
But how you got from insurance to homosexuals without any intermediate
steps is anyone's guess.
I was showing you how you are against people you propose that you are for.
And you are failing miserably because you cannot even support your
primary premise. Insurance carriers are NOT the government, and thus
NOT subject to the Constitution. For some reason, you cannot seem to
understand that basic fact.
They also have the right to charge according to the numerous risk
factors that can extend or reduce a person's lifespan.
How so? How does that fulfill the 14th Amendment?
It treats everyone with the same risk factors fairly, and it has the
numbers to substantiate the rate charged.
Error. Women who use hormonals and who have abortions are not charged
according to their risk levels.
Yes, they are. There is no elevated risk factor associated with
abortions or birth control that is significant enough to change their
premiums.
Without being able to charge according to the risks that the customer has,
insurance companies would
not turn a profit and thus would not stay in business.
Ridiculous.
Nope. They are companies, and thus their main goal is to make a
profit.
One rate could be set for every person without discriminating on the basis
of age or lifestyles or medical conditions, and insurers would not go broke.
There is no rate change based on lifestyle, although there is for
profession. And the rate that you are proposing would be prohibitively
high, too high for most people to afford. It is better to charge
according to the specific factors that are applicable to each person,
so that the high risk customers are charge more than the low risk
customers. Which is what they do now.
There is nothing that requires insurance companies to even insure every
customer that comes to them,
Which should be illegal in our current system.
No, it is not illegal since insurance companies are regulated by very
strict laws.
They are not regulated for the people well enough.
Yes, they are.
Medical insurance is a drain.
That is because medicine is expensive.
However, nothing in the laws say that they have to charge
people with different risk factors the same rates.
The 14th Amendment does not allow them to charge different rates.
The 14th Amendment does not apply because insurance companies are not
the government.
although the high risk customers they are more
likely just to charge them an exorbitant premium.
Which doesn't protect persons equally, huh?
Yes, it does.
Error.
Only on your part.
Insurance companies are not the government,
But, you are acting as if they have the authority to govern themsleves in
violation of the 14th Amendment.
There is no violation of the 14th Amendment. The Constitution applies
to the GOVERNMENT, not private industry. And private industry DOES
have the authority to govern themselves as long as they obey the law.
And the law does not require them to charge everyone the exact same
rate no matter what their risk factors are.
and high risk customers mean that the company is unlikely to turn a profit
unless they charge enough to offset the risk that the customer.
So, you do not understand insurance rate making, I see, or compassion.
I understand both, and far better than you it would seem.
Why are you against charging everyone the same rate so that all who have
needs are taken care of?
Because only the very rich would be able to afford insurance then.
Why are you against paying five dollars per month so that every sick person
is taken care of?
Because that is not how much people would be charged. It would be
closer to a couple thousand a month at least.
Check spousal rates.
What "spousal rates"?
Any of them.
There are none.
Error.
Not on my part.
Therefore, I cannot check them.
Why do you lie?
What lie? You have not presented any "spousal rates" for me to check.
And when you provide links to them, assuming that they exist, please make
sure that they are from the government and are pertinent.
The government doesn't discriminate in medicare premiums.
Most insurance is not provided by the government. Only the very poor
and very desperate depend on the inferior quality of government
insurance. The only exception to this are military personnel,
dependents, and retirees, whom get better care than the insurance that
you get, and pay for that care by defending our country and putting
their lives on the line.
Private companies are not
subject to the Constitution.
Error. Only criminals, and unconstitutional types believe that lie.
There is no error on my part. Nor am I lying. The Constitution only
applies to the government. It does not apply to private industry. The
government makes laws in line with the Constitution that private
industry is subject to.
The only person in this thread that is lying is YOU.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
[snip]
.
