sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
I thought that Bush was from Maine.
Why not let the employees buy into the same group insurance that is used to cover them if they want to cover their spouses and children? It would still be cheaper than buying it on thier own. My point here is that a single person working for an employer (municipal or otherwise) who provides health insurance benefits to spouses and children of employees in effect receives less compensation than they would if they had a partner or children. This is discriminatory any way you look at it, especially when those fringe benefits aren't even taxed. I suppose the employer can see which employee has the most children, see what it costs to insure them, and then pay the difference to all their other employees. However, that would be cumbersome, and then you'll have people complaining that they receive a smaller salary than someone who doesn't have children or a spouse. And for various reasons I've felt health insurance, like auto insurance, is a bad idea as it removes the financial consequences from not taking care of your health, or driving poorly, respectively. The best way IMO is to simply pay people a decent salary, drop all the fringe benefits, and let them purchase on their own any benefits they feel they need. I'm all for selling insurance to individuals at group rates, or simply letting people pay out of pocket. Medical savings accounts are another good idea. In all honesty, I'd rather work for a place that has no fringe benefits and can afford to pay me $10,000 or $15,000 more because of it. That can buy a lot of medical care, or retirement benefits, or whatever.Fushigi said:I'm curious. How would you propose spouses, offspring, and domestic partners of government employees get their health care? With what you're saying, they would become a huge burden to the free/cheap clinics and hospitals that are out there (since civil employees are by and large not well paid, buying private health insurance is not feasible). And those facilities would have to appeal to the government for funding, so you're right back where you started, except the funding would be more expensive than the insurance.
As long as those rights don't include spousal entitlements, whether or not fraud occurs is irrelevant. My main objections to the whole idea of gay marriage are fiscal. Despite the fact that I find the whole concept of homosexuality repulsive in the extreme I realize I have no right to interfere with someone else's decision, as long as that decision doesn't cost me money.Allowing civil unions that full rights of marriage would make the odds of fraud the same as for married couples, eliminating that portion of the argument.
Handruin said:So how's MA treating ya. Are you having a wicked good time with all the massholes?
sechs said:I thought that Bush was from Maine.
Merc, I don't know about your current financial state but for the majority of people taxes hurt badly. Unless you're millionaire every dollar taken out in taxes affects you in some way or another. Even if you have enough left to buy what you need, the taxes you pay mean that you can't put away as much for retirement. This means you have to work more years before you can retire. Thanks to taxes, a single person who might otherwise be able to retire at 40 or 45 may need to work until they're 65 or 70. In effect, paying taxes = more years spent working. Unless you thoroughly enjoy your job, this is a negative. Most people can't stand what they do, and would be happy if they could stop doing so 20 years early by not paying taxes. That's the cold, hard reality of why people vote in someone who will reduce their tax burden. In an ideal world where the labor for handouts is provided by robots and the raw materials are nearly free your system might actually work. In 100 years I might actually be all for providing "free" housing, health care, food, etc. to anyone who asks because doing so will not burden society thanks to technology. However, as long as the working class pays for these things you're going to problems trying to convince people. I'm unwilling to work an extra 20 years to pay for benefits which I'll never be eligible for. If that seems selfish, so be it. If I was rich and didn't need to work, then I have no problems using my discretionary wealth for the betterment of others. However, there simply aren't enough rich to pay for all these programs. That's the main failure of liberalism-forcing those who really can't afford it to pay for programs they will usually never be eligible for.Mercutio said:In other words, you're so concerned with the state of your wallet that you're unwilling to underwrite the statistically small net cost of including benefits for homosexual partners in those enjoyed by the other ~95 of the married population despite the obvious evidence of discrimination not having those benefits creates.
Wow.
jtr1962 said:I'll freely admit I don't like homosexuals in general but I find discrimination against them to be very wrong. However, I also find forcing taxpayers to pay for someone's partner (gay or straight) with AIDS to be equally wrong. In fact, intellectually I'm starting to find the very concept of marriage wrong if such marriage conveys special benefits not available to those who aren't married. Maybe instead of recognizing marriages for homosexuals we should stop recognizing marriages period, at least on the state level. I think sechs is dead right that governments have no business issuing marriage licenses. Religions will of course be free to continue to do what they want. I tend to think that would solve the problem. Inheritance and other things can be taken care of legally regardless with the proper legal documents. When you come down to it, you're either committed or you're not. A piece of paper saying so is irrelevant.
You may be wrong there. When the whole gay marriage issue starting gaining steam in Canada back in the 80s sometime, many of the gay leaders admitted that one of their principle corresponding interests was to gain the retirement and pension benefits that commonly went to spouses on the death of the principle breadwinner (generally the husband). Gaining religious recognition wasn't a primary goal; the principle goal was a matter of economics. Of course, this was/is part of their ongoing struggle to become accepted as a normal and natural part of society.RWIndiana said:...Gays (wanting to get "married") just want religious recognition of their anti-religious philosophies ...
RWIndiana said:Well now, if we would use the old-Testament law of dealing with homosexuality (only reason I am bringing religion into this is because it is part of the discussion at present), that would take care of things quite well, and may even reduce crowding:
Leviticus 20:13 (NIV)
"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Just a thought?
Actually this is one of the reasons I think there would be an attempted ban on the Bible if homosexual marriage was legalized. It would be considered a hate crime to sell Bibles.
But (as was mentioned earlier) I'm not sure why homosexuals want to take a biblical institution such as marriage and mix it with nonbiblical affection. And IMO, a civil union is basically the same as a marriage. Gays (wanting to get "married") just want religious recognition of their anti-religious philosophies. What would the world do without religious people to shock with anti-religious ideas? What could they complain about then? I think everyone would commit suicide. 8)
Face it merc, you would be lost without us here for you to dump on. LOL
Pradeep said:Handruin said:So how's MA treating ya. Are you having a wicked good time with all the massholes?
LOL, the drivers here must be the worst. I thought New Yorkers were bad but MA has the cut-off champs! And this against a 1-ton cargo van!MA-2 wasn't a pretty picture this morning. Love how they call roundabouts "rotaries". Didn't actually get into Boston city, I was up in Ipswich and Leominster. Meant to snow tomorrow, good to be leaving. Pretty leaves.
BooST said:I'm not saying that all government is bad, but when EVERYTHING is controlled by the government it is... I personally really hate working, then seeing my paycheck flushed down the social security toilet. I just don't comprehend how you are so ready to give up your hard earned money to let the government piss it away into things like social security.
Merc, when is the last time you were on a highway? I-94? My god, if this is what you call great, I'd hate to see what you call bad.
It's not the small change by adding yet another benefit. Rather, it's the sum total of all these little "it's just another $5 a month" tax increases which hurts people. And despite education, opportunities are lacking in many regions of the country. Even professional jobs are going overseas. Getting better employment or even employment is not easy. If I abandoned my idea of running my own business for higher income, I doubt I could find anything paying more than $15 an hour, with $10 being more likely. It's an insult to have to pay about 20 to 25% of that out in taxes yet that's what I would have to. Sure, people deal with extra expenses all the time. The difference here is that they don't mind expenses which bring them some benefit. Past the things I mentioned earlier, a lot of what government tries to do today doesn't benefit the vast majority, even indirectly. Why should someone who by any standard is among the working poor pay any taxes, let alone 25%? Incidentally, Kerry's wife paid a smaller percentage than that on a income of $5 million. Funny how that works. If she feels so strongly about some of these programs along with the other "enlightened" members of the celebrity crowd then she should voluntarily pay the government extra. Don't ask someone making a piddling $25,000 or $30,000 on a miserable job to surrender 25% of their pay for something which will never benefit them. It's morally reprehensible.To someone whose budget is dramatically changed by small percentage of additional expenses, I'd suggest making a slight change in lifestyle, either in the form of reduced amenities or in seeking better employment or education that will lead to better employment. People live with changes in expenses and earnings all the time ("How are we going to afford _______ on our income."). It's part of life.
Mercutio said:What do you propose we do for those people who depend on social security if the young stop paying? Do we let them starve?
If you did, you might've found that you were scraping paint off both sides of your 1-ton van driving on some of those Beacon Hill streets. Boston's the most interesting "big" city in the region.Pradeep said:...Didn't actually get into Boston city...
I don't know if you're a big enough person to apologize or not. But if you are this would be a good time to do so. The above comment is way out of line. There is no excuse for having made it to any member - let alone a brand new member.I would be in a better world without people like you.
flagreen said:Mercutio,
I don't know if you're a big enough person to apologize or not. But if you are this would be a good time to do so. The above comment is way out of line. There is no excuse for having made it to any member - let alone a brand new member.I would be in a better world without people like you.
Do not post or link any material that is illegal, injurious, threatening, sexually explicit, disrespectful, or offensive: as determined solely by StorageForum.
Mercutio said:Even the Jews don't believe most of that shit any more. So let's look at the Christian commandments for a moment:
Christians, lazy pukes that they are, condense 651 commandments of the Jewish God, down to just 10.
Mercutio said:I don't have a "love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality.
RWIndiana said:Well now, if we would use the old-Testament law of dealing with homosexuality (only reason I am bringing religion into this is because it is part of the discussion at present), that would take care of things quite well, and may even reduce crowding:
jtr1962 said:Finally, I'm sorry for you that someone you despise with every fiber of your being got reelected, but as Clocker says, deal with it. I felt similarly when Clinton was reelected. Things aren't going to be as bad as you think they are. In retrospect, consider yourself lucky that Kerry lost. I believe he would have thrown the nation into a full-blown depression trying to nationalize health care and save Social Security.