Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who cares if domestic partners (even the heterosexual ones) and their kids don't have access to basic health care benefits? They can get sick and even die, but by God we're protecting marriages so we're all going to heaven, right?
Who cares if domestic partners (even the heterosexual ones) and their kids don't have access to basic health care benefits? They can get sick and even die, but by God we're protecting marriages so we're all going to heaven, right?
::standing ovation::
The openly voiced furor will die down and action will turn to the courts (I really hope this nonsense gets resolved there soon) but right now I am absolutely embarrassed for my adopted home. Family members have messaged me on FB, with me responding in colorful language. And we were riding up on the Blue Ridge Parkway when some moldy old Goldwinger stopped at the overlook where we were taking a butt break, looked at the license plates on our bikes and jovially said "hey! how do like living in Hickabamassippi?" I rounded on him and pertly responded "how do you like spending your tourist dollars here?" He *chuckled*, shook his head, and gave us a cheery wave before heading out.
My family and FB friends have been sympathetic, but a little surprised. I always defended my choice to live here, against their prejudiced assumptions, by assuring them that NC was becoming more progressive. I still haven't lost faith, given the analysis Adam Bink: A Look at What Happened on Amendment 1 in North Carolina
Unfortunately, now the issue is going to have to suffer the long, tortuous route of a court battle.
I love how the "politically conservative" position tends to supprt states' rights over Federal laws--but then when it comes to the next level and local rights vs state laws, they are fine with a state being able to overrule local procedures? Several municipalities already offered domestic partner benefits, and most likely they will be froced to discontinue them, thanks to this law--advanced by the "party of less government intrusion"
Unfortunately, now the issue is going to have to suffer the long, tortuous route of a court battle.
Which was/is inevitable.
W-S may have done the larger goal a favor by declaring this policy and by that giving basis for a lawsuit on this portion of the argument. The rest of the argument will be having it's day in Court soon enough.
I love how the "politically conservative" position tends to supprt states' rights over Federal laws--but then when it comes to the next level and local rights vs state laws, they are fine with a state being able to overrule local procedures? Several municipalities already offered domestic partner benefits, and most likely they will be froced to discontinue them, thanks to this law--advanced by the "party of less government intrusion"
Maybe it's a Goldilocks thing. Federal control is too big, municipal control is too small, and state control is just right. Or they could just be hypocrites. One's definitely more plausible than the other.
W-S may have done the larger goal a favor by declaring this policy and by that giving basis for a lawsuit on this portion of the argument. The rest of the argument will be having it's day in Court soon enough.
Well, someone is going to have to take a look at it. People are really starting to scratch their heads over what to do about this POS amendment.
"The language of the amendment uses that term 'domestic legal union'" Howell adds. "The issue is that we have no law in the state that defines the term 'domestic legal union,' so there's this prohibition of the state recognizing a domestic legal union and the only thing we know about that term is that it includes marriage. What it means beyond marriage will be up to the court to determine."
I guess folks may suffer, but several trips to the ER in the last 12 months, (two kidney stones, severe infection, etc) all that happened between midnight and 3:00am on Saturday morning, have revealed a very large and consistent population of low lifes in the ER seeking treatment for God knows what. I am just not sure the hospital is gonna turn gay folks away when they readily take many others with no, zero, zip insurance.
That is a prime reason that health care costs so much, cause I am paying, in addition to my own load, the load for Bozo the Clown and his many, many relatives.
I think the amendment is way misguided, but I am not sure of the scope to the actual damage to health in view of my own, consistent observations, and bills!!!!.
Not sure about theory but I know what I have seen, consistently. In reality, having insurance means you pay a portion of your bill (via copay, coinsurance, and premium) rather than sluff it off on responsible people who pay their way!
LLN, no offense but I think you're way off base to the real issue here. Namely, the cost of administering health care via emergency rooms is significantly higher than that delivered via other medical facilities. So when someone doesn't have medical insurance and instead opts for the emergency room with no ability to pay, we all pay more for that. If we could isolate the incremental cost we pay for this, and divert it to insurance coverage for those with no insurance, we'd all be paying much, much less.
And perhaps a little compassion may go a long way to making you realize your "theory" is a bit misguided. The so-called irresponsible people who "sluff it off on responsible people" include disabled or mentally handicapped people who can't hold a job, children living in poverty who have no choice about their economic situation, and people who are down on their luck through no fault of their own. It's sad that anyone would consider these unfortunate people to be "low-lifes".
That is a prime reason that health care costs so much, cause I am paying, in addition to my own load, the load for Bozo the Clown and his many, many relatives.
Oh you mean the inbred heterosexuals with a trailer full of kids and their crack pipes. After all in NC you can still marry your first cousin, as long they are of the opposite gender.
I guess folks may suffer, but several trips to the ER in the last 12 months, (two kidney stones, severe infection, etc) all that happened between midnight and 3:00am on Saturday morning, have revealed a very large and consistent population of low lifes in the ER seeking treatment for God knows what. I am just not sure the hospital is gonna turn gay folks away when they readily take many others with no, zero, zip insurance.
That is a prime reason that health care costs so much, cause I am paying, in addition to my own load, the load for Bozo the Clown and his many, many relatives.
I think the amendment is way misguided, but I am not sure of the scope to the actual damage to health in view of my own, consistent observations, and bills!!!!.
Not sure about theory but I know what I have seen, consistently. In reality, having insurance means you pay a portion of your bill (via copay, coinsurance, and premium) rather than sluff it off on responsible people who pay their way!
Universal health care just might stop folks from having to rely on ERs for care. Just think, having insurance means PREVENTATIVE care.
BUT, does everyone really want a healthy society?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
