Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 You should run for the head of the RNC. They run me out for being left of Lenin on most issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Holy hell lol :doh:...can he be THAT dense as to not see the grand-canyon sized holes in his logic? :rotflmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 So now the Republican party is totally pro gay people. Based on Steele's logic Republicans should be encouraging more people to be gay so small businesses can hire all gay people and never have to pay spouse benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 First question, why couldn't a company deside to cover a straight couple and not the gay couple? Last I heard, sexual orientation is not a protected status like age, gender or race. Don't get me wrong, I think it's terrible to descriminate based on sexual orientation. I just wasn't aware of it being against the law. Second question is one I've asked before. Why is it more expensive per person to cover more people? I know when I got married, the amount my wife and I paid combined for insurance dropped a lot. I'm not just talking about medical. Life, car, etc. all dropped. When I asked, it was explained like this: person A has a 10% chance of needing a 10k opperation. person B has a 10% chance of needing a 10k opperation. Now if you use expected costs as a way of predicting how much I as an insurer how to pay out, it is 1k per person. However, if they are the only two customers I have and I want to stay in business, I better make them pay closer to 5k just in case. The more people I insure, the more accurate my expected pay out per person is when it comes to budgeting. That multi person "discount" is really the insurance companies spreading the risk. The spreading the risk is also why government employees get good insurance rates. There are a lot of us. So back to the gay marriage question. Wouldn't having more people still lower the cost per person? Will health insurers really raise the cost of insurance per person if they find out they are gay and have a monogous relationship? I've not heard anything to suggest this. Anyway, that's my two cents that may only be worth a penny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 It's much cheaper to only provide benefits to gay couples. Steele is confused. It's hetero marriages that are crippling small businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 That's a good question g. Ive been assuming that by recognizing gay marriage, that would force companies to extend bennies. If they dont. I probably dont have much to disagree with anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 First question, why couldn't a company deside to cover a straight couple and not the gay couple? Last I heard, sexual orientation is not a protected status like age, gender or race. Don't get me wrong, I think it's terrible to descriminate based on sexual orientation. I just wasn't aware of it being against the law. Good point. If companies could deny benifits to people on the basis of left handed or right handed think of how much money they would save. Folks who where mismatched socks. We could save alot of money by coming up with other non protected ways to subdivide people and then deny them civil protections. I like it.... Second question is one I've asked before. Why is it more expensive per person to cover more people? I know when I got married, the amount my wife and I paid combined for insurance dropped a lot. I'm not just talking about medical. Life, car, etc. all dropped. When I asked, it was explained like this: person A has a 10% chance of needing a 10k opperation. person B has a 10% chance of needing a 10k opperation. It's really more about profit. If they can isolate and cut off the outliers from the main herd they can rape and feed upon the flesh of those outliers and not piss off the stupid folks who have the heard mentality. It's basic logic, devide and conquere. The folks in the heard have the false comfort of security. As soon as you come up with the catagory which cuts them away from the heard and allows you to deny coverage, charge them more, or drop them all together; the rest of the heard won't care... cause now they too are outliers. It's all about taking bite sized chunks and chewing 50 times before biting again. So back to the gay marriage question. Wouldn't having more people still lower the cost per person? If you deny them familiy benifits you make them get multiple policies, and that's more profitable for the insurance companies, while still appeals ot the religous whack jobs by allowing the insurance companies to be mean to gay folks. Will health insurers really raise the cost of insurance per person if they find out they are gay and have a monogous relationship? I've not heard anything to suggest this. Of coarse they will. But Insurance companies will also raise your rates if they figure out you are over weight, have a pre-existing condition, are underweight, take up smoking, live in certain areas, have a specific type of job.. anything which makes you an outlier. Bottom line is the Insurance Bidness is a pretty fine business to be in. If they can deny coverage to more folks and make them pay more, it's even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 It's much cheaper to only provide benefits to gay couples. Steele is confused. It's hetero marriages that are crippling small businesses. Exactly right. If we denied benifits to hetersexuals we would be able to save 90-95% of all benifits. Covering only the homosexuals likely would be much cheaper. It's this type of out of the box thinking which makes the GOP what it is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The company already counts on the cost for Bill marrying Erin.Why SHOULD a company be forced to pay that additional cost? I would assume that an employer would have to take under consideration that anyone employed by them can get married and take advantage of the benefits presented to them for married couples. So, where is this "additional" cost that these businesses have to account for? These costs should be accounted for, no matter if the employee is gay or straight. Sexual orientation shouldn't enter into the equation at all, because a company can't assume a lifetime bachelor or spinster will never get married and take advantage of their benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 They run me out for being left of Lenin on most issues. C'mon Kilmer, you are defending a truly stupid statement made by Steele, and you're doing it solely because he's a republican. If Obama were to say we need to allow gay marriage because then more gay people will have health care paid for and it will contribute to less expense on the health care industry, you would say he was off his rocker. And he would be. But because a Republican says gay marriage is bad for business, you support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmacop Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 There is no debate on economic grounds' date=' unless the moral one is resolved first.[/quote']Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Steele's "argument" is ridiculous for two reasons: (1) It is a transparent attempt to avoid even trying to discuss the REAL issue -- whether or not gays and lesbians are entitled to equal marriage rights. (2) It is internally illogical and inconsistent because it focuses on an issue -- employers having to pay extra payroll and insurance benefits -- that is not specific to homosexuals and (if accepted) would apply to all marriages of whatever nature. It therefore proves nothing. Steele cannot be saying that any and all extra payroll taxes are empirically bad and should be avoided, because by that logic no spouses, children or dependents of any employees (either straight or gay) would be covered by small business as a matter of principle. That being the case, it is then necessary to ask which kind of payroll benefits should be accepted, and which kind of payroll benefits should be rejected. To the extent that one's position is that payroll benefits to gay couples should be rejected, something more than "it costs money" has to be argued, since ALL payroll benefits (by their very nature) cost money. This gets you back to the moral issue -- arguing why payroll benefits to gays should be rejected where the same benefits to heterosexuals should be encouraged (or at least put up with). This is clearly the argument that Steele is trying so hard to avoid, with laughable results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 19, 2009 Author Share Posted May 19, 2009 I would assume that an employer would have to take under consideration that anyone employed by them can get married and take advantage of the benefits presented to them for married couples. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 C'mon Kilmer, you are defending a truly stupid statement made by Steele, and you're doing it solely because he's a republican.If Obama were to say we need to allow gay marriage because then more gay people will have health care paid for and it will contribute to less expense on the health care industry, you would say he was off his rocker. And he would be. But because a Republican says gay marriage is bad for business, you support it. If you take the time to go back through gay marriage threads, you will see that this is ALWAYS one of my reasons for opposing it. Im not defending Steele, Im defending his position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Michael Steele is confused http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haVqcPfeqKI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 My g/f's work benefits allow me to be listed as a domestic partner, but we would have to pay the same extra premium as if I was a legal spouse. Since I have good benefits at my job, we decided not to this year, but just may next year. The cool part though is that she works at a tech college and I can go to school for only 10% tution once I'm signed up as her offical domestic partner. I just need to fill out the paper work and have it notorized to say that we are in a relationship and have lived together for more than a year. The Log Cabin party will be working harder to slap around Mr. Steele and set him straight....no pun intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 If you take the time to go back through gay marriage threads, you will see that this is ALWAYS one of my reasons for opposing it. Im not defending Steele, Im defending his position. so small businesses shoudln't hire people w/ kids cause they cost more for benefits? sorry Kilmer, but I just don't see the logic in that argument. It's ok, we can agree to disagree:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 I know other people have conceded the idea that overall health care costs for small businesses are guaranteed to go up if gay marriages are allowed. But I'm not at all convinced. The math below adds up to a convincing argument to the contrary, or at least a wash. We've covered bits and pieces of this in the thread, but I haven't seen the whole thing laid out. So here it is. Before my wife and I got married, my health benefits were worth something like $8k per year through my small business. Her health benefits were worth about the same through her small business. Total cost to American small business for our health insurance as two singles: $16k per year. Once we got married, we had a choice to make. We could jump to her company's plan or my company's plan, insuring both of us under whichever plan was better. Hers turned out to be better. Magically our combined health insurance costs dropped because we were married. Total cost to American small business for our health insurance: very roughly $12k per year. The overall cost burden to good ol' American small business decreased by 25% due to our marriage. When our daughter was born, our family plan increased in cost to $14k per year. That's still thousands less in small-business burden than two single people with no kids. Unless health insurance premiums would be jacked up by about 25% for gay married couples (and I imagine that would be hard to get away with in the current political climate), this adds up to similar economics for gay married couples vs. straight married couples: A reduction in total health benefits costs to business, even if a kid is involved. Now, what I don't know is whether our savings as a married-with-kid couple are typical. If they are, and if even just some of those savings are preserved for gay married couples, then any rational examination of actual costs would cause small business to want to see gay people get married. In the long run, some of 'em skip to the other person's coverage and some of 'em skip to yours. Some stay right where they are. Overall (as long as we're stuck in this myopic practical-argument-only mode), the correct metric to look at is total cost to business. I wouldn't be surprised to see that metric drop or go materially unchanged. Certainly it's not a foregone conclusion that total costs would rise. Stay-at-home partners could complicate this. But I don't know any gay couples where one stays at home, and I get the impression that it's not so common. So I expect that most gay marriages (like most straight marriages) would involve two working partners, and a shuffling of covered individuals between corporate plans -- not simply adding people to the grid who previously had no coverage or paid out of pocket. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 No, either all married couples are provided bennies or none are. Allowing gay marriage expands the pool and therefor costs businesses and govt more money. There is also an additional risk involved with the lifestyle choice. But it's miniscule compared to the simple addition of homosexual spouses.It will also increase if polygamists are granted the right to marry. fiscally its sound but on a human level its a disgraceful statement....I'm sure he's fine with pet insurance so to him a company should offer dog insurance but gay spouses are less than dogs in his eye. Terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Does anybody really think what the GOP believes and is thinking is even relevant right now? For goodness sake, even Neil Cavuto unloaded on some irrelevant ® Congresswoman over the pathetic crap they are talking about. I'm a Republican and I just can't believe the nonsense coming out of the GOP these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 whats really funny is how Obama and Biden made it clear they do not support "gay marriage".... so tell me...what exactly has the Democratic party done for me lately?? (refering to "gay stuff") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 fiscally its sound but on a human level its a disgraceful statement....I'm sure he's fine with pet insurance so to him a company should offer dog insurance but gay spouses are less than dogs in his eye. Terrible. How weird would it be that I can insure my dog but not the woman I love?:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 We dont get french benefits?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 whats really funny is how Obama and Biden made it clear they do not support "gay marriage"....so tell me...what exactly has the Democratic party done for me lately?? (refering to "gay stuff") They support civil unions and giving same-sex couples all the same benefits as heterosexual couples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Does anybody really think what the GOP believes and is thinking is even relevant right now? For goodness sake, even Neil Cavuto unloaded on some irrelevant ® Congresswoman over the pathetic crap they are talking about.I'm a Republican and I just can't believe the nonsense coming out of the GOP these days. The stupid **** about passing a resolution to rename the Democratic party? It's complete stupidity. Cavuto did a good job of not letting her off the hook for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LApunkrocker72 Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 As a Democrat, I am so glad Michael Steele is in charge of the GOP. Because every time Steele opens his mouth, he and his party sinks even lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.