- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
It may not be obvious, but the last part of my sentence was a link to the wiki which discusses rights.
Most basically, I would just define it as a valid legal claim (whether in the context of what is, or ought be). I don't claim that there are any "natural" rights.
Colloquially, it generally gets used (ambiguously) to refer to the subset of above that people strongly support.
Homosexuality is not normal or natural.
Again - I could care less what you think is normal/natural - only about the law.
Not occurring in nature is not enough for you to call for banning rockets, watches, clothes, radios, fake tits, etc. etc. etc.
Biology teaches us this simple common sense fact.
People have already shown you that there are examples of homosexuality in thousands of species.
"Same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom" - ref
(Plus, again, who cares...)
There are no Gay animals having sex with each other and refusing to have sex with the same sex.
Except I already gave you references for exactly that here.
"They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates." - ref
"Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual." - ref
Also, female Laysan Albatross "remain pair-bonded for life and cooperatively rear young" - ref
(Plus, again, who cares...)
I don't know if you noticed, but the odds of two Gay men staying together for life from the time they get out of high school is very very small.
I don't know if you noticed, but the same is true for heterosexual couples.
Our divorce courts would be swollen beyond workable.
Silliness. Less than 5% of the population is LGBT, and only a subset of those will want to get married, and only a subset of those will get divorced. Is the court burden reason enough to make divorce illegal between heterosexual couples (the vast majority of couples), or, more appropos, to make heterosexual marriage illegal?
What would stop two guys getting married for a time for the health insurance or other benefits from the other?
What would prevent it for heterosexual couples (or couples pretending to be heterosexual)?
(Watch out for all those couples pretending to be gay for all those benefits they could get.... - laugh)
Our marriage laws and the family unit has stood our nation well since it's inception.
Our marriage laws have changed drastically since our founding. (see coverture, etc)
What's next on the Gay agenda
A government that doesn't care if you have a pp or a vjj...
Are you going to force the state to give you foster kids to raise even if they don't want to for the good of the child?
Is it "for the good of the child" to be "raised by a corrupt Government" in state run group homes rather than placed with a loving couple (even if that couple has the same naughty bits)?
I said it "would" make a big difference.
Except it didn't do so pre-ACA and insurance companies themselves say it wouldn't/won't.
only Main, Georgia, and Wyoming actually implemented these across state lines laws. They did this after the passage of the ACA.
And why is that?? They have been allowed to pass such laws for more than 70 years - where was the push to do so? By states, by consumers and consumer advocates, by the insurers themselves?
The numerous market variables (such as uncertainty) as a result of the ACA must be considered.
Sure - so let's consider them - do they say their concern is the ACA: (from the same ref as before)
"Respondents universally reported the enormous difficulty that out-of-state insurers face in building a network of local providers, and insurers identified doing so as a significant barrier to market entry that far surpasses concerns about a state's regulatory environment or benefit mandates. State officials and insurers also noted that across state lines legislation ignores the primary cause of high prices—the cost of delivering care—and fails to account for often dramatic differences in the cost of care between states and regions."
"Respondents in five states reported difficulties in implementation because other states have little incentive to establish across state lines partnerships. In addition, officials and insurers in all six states noted the complexity of health insurance as a practical barrier to across state lines proposals and that establishing the rules under which an interstate health insurance compact would operate would likely demand more time and resources than states are willing to commit."
"not one state official reported any advocacy from any stakeholder, including the consumers and insurance companies the laws were designed to benefit."
"Respondents reported little insurer interest in using the laws as vehicles for entering a new market or selling new products."
"Rhode Island officials indicated that the study likely would have been completed if stakeholders had shown more interest in the study's conclusions, but noted that they have not been contacted about the issue since the law's passage."
"There has been similar disinterest from insurers: a regional health insurer based in Massachusetts indicated only minimal interest in the legislation, noting that Rhode Island's regulatory requirements are a comparatively low priority in deciding whether to enter the market."
"Among other challenges, regulators pointed to open questions such as how each state's benefit mandates and consumer protections would be treated as well as which state would enforce legal protections if a consumer had a problem with a policy."
"State officials noted that, six years after the legislation was passed, they have not received any inquiries or interest from insurers or other stakeholders regarding a compact"
"For the compact to achieve its goals, it would require leveling the wide diversity in costs of health care goods and services that exist from state to state and market to market. Because the costs of health care are based on local issues like the availability of providers and population demographics, the report concludes that a compact could not effectuate the necessary leveling of prices."
"The Washington report further concludes that the administrative costs needed to create a compact outweigh the potential benefits."
"The Wyoming insurance commissioner reached out to surrounding states shortly after the legislation was passed in 2010. However, the commissioner was unable to find a state interested or willing to create a consortium as envisioned under the law"
"Wyoming officials also reported a lack of interest from insurers with no insurer inquiries about across state lines policies since the law's passage."
"Slightly over a year later, however, regulators reported that no insurer has entered the Georgia market to offer out-of-state policies. One insurer remarked: 'Not one plan has gone through [the process of selling an out-of-state policy] and I don't think any plan will.'"
"State officials attributed the lack of insurer interest in part to a lack of consumer demand, noting: 'Insurance companies are pretty informed about what their customers want and there just hasn't been the groundswell of consumer demand that perhaps the proponents envisioned.'"
"Officials also acknowledged that the law's requirement that insurers maintain a Georgia license could be a barrier for some out-of-state insurers. In most states, the licensing process can be costly and require an extensive review of a company's solvency, business plan, governance and financials."
"Although domestic insurers maintain licensure in Georgia and, thus, could conceivably offer products that they make available to consumers in other states, state officials suggested that domestic insurers have little interest in “cannibalizing” their own, established products with cheaper alternatives from other states. As a result, domestic insurers are thought to be as unlikely as out-of-state insurers to offer out-of-state policies in Georgia."
"a regional insurer, based in Massachusetts, reported that the company is “always looking at expansion opportunities” in New England, but is not considering Maine because of difficulties in establishing a provider network in the state, which was referred to as a 'very challenging environment.'"
"The first challenge is that across state lines laws do little to address the most significant barriers to market competition and affordable coverage. The second challenge is that across state lines laws cannot be fully implemented without significant effort from state regulators and insurers to address legal and practical hurdles."
"Officials and insurers in all six states reported that their across state lines legislation was largely unsuccessful because of the localized nature of how health care is delivered, rather than the state’s regulatory requirements."
"Out-of-state insurers thus face a chicken-and-egg dilemma: they must build a sufficient membership to negotiate competitive rates with providers, but, to garner that membership, they must show customers they have an adequate network of providers and charge a premium that is comparable to their competitors."
"Respondents universally reported the enormous difficulty that out-of-state insurers face in building a network of local providers, and insurers identified doing so as a significant barrier to market entry that far surpasses concerns about a state’s regulatory environment or benefit mandates. This difficulty is compounded in states like Maine, Washington, Wyoming and Georgia, which face provider shortages in rural areas."
"A Washington state official suggested that, for western states in particular, building a provider network is such a barrier that, in all likelihood, only old-fashioned indemnity (i.e., not network-based) plans would be viable."
"State officials and insurers also noted that across state lines legislation ignores the primary cause of high prices— the cost of delivering care—and fails to account for the dramatic differences in the cost of care between states and regions and, in some cases, within a single state."
"Thus, while the cost of an individual health plan may be less expensive in a neighboring state, those rates are typically lower because of the prices charged by providers rather than the state’s regulatory environment. Thus, insurers seeking to expand from a low-cost state to a high-cost state may find that premium differentials disappear once the cost of care is taken into account."
"many state regulators are reluctant to relinquish some or all authority to enforce state standards by taking the risk of allowing another state to establish and enforce consumer protections that affect their residents. For example, officials in three of the states questioned how to implement a compact or across state lines policy that allows the secondary state to enforce the laws of the primary state and vice versa."
"Even if authority is clearly determined, some questioned whether a primary state would have the capacity to enforce its regulations and provide protection to consumers in other states."
"Although not one of the states studied here, Louisiana regulators reported to the Senate Committee on Insurance that the sale of health insurance across state lines “would provide minimal consumer protections and minimize our state’s oversight” in part because regulators’ “attempts to remedy a Louisiana resident’s insurance complaint would be hindered when the product was purchased in another state."
"officials and insurers in all six states noted the complexity of health insurance as a practical barrier to across state lines proposals."
"Although the administrative obstacles to regional sales or compacts may be surmounted if health insurers, consumers, employers or other health care stakeholders were advocating for the laws to be fully implemented, not one state official reported advocacy from any stakeholder, including insurance companies. Insurers reported little interest in using the laws as vehicles for entering a new market or selling new products."
"To a large extent, the bills moved through state legislatures thanks to the efforts of well-positioned legislators, think tanks and, in some states, small business trade groups. They advanced often in spite of opposition from consumer and patient advocacy groups. But once enacted, these laws appear to lack any organized champion."
The only mention of ACA's impact was that state officials "were too busy with implementation of the ACA to devote the time necessary" - which certainly was not the case before the ACA passed, and is not likely posing the same burden years later.
One may look at what happened to auto insurance if one is concerned about a “race to the bottom”. Mega companies such as Progressive and Geico are constanty competing to cut costs while attracting customers with appropriate coverage (lest they face embarrassing publicized lawsuits).
Here is where I think you are going to feel quite embarrassed - auto insurance is largely regulated by the same laws regarding state control that health insurance fell under pre-ACA (McCarran–Ferguson Act, etc.). Kind-of (completely) undermines your argument, eh?
The alternate is actually credit card companies which, once allowed, moved to the couple states with the fewest laws (no usary limits, etc), and use their lobbying power on state officials, etc. - all very predictable.
RE: "Ramsey said insurers are especially likely to take advantage of the law if the Supreme Court determines that the health care law is unconstitutional."
The issue of constitutionality was decided the same year the article was written - nearly 3 years ago now, yet still no interest. Also worth noting that if it have been ruled unconstitutional, we would have reverted back to the previous laws, under which, not one state even passed a law to study it, much less allow it.
This article indicates why the previous two articles show lack of enthusiasm on the part of insurers. The OPM is overly restrictive and is a profit killer.
Where does the ref say either of these things?
This also would not explain why no states allowed it pre-ACA.
The OPM has manifest the first multi-state plans in the country.
Competition not only causes companies to try to lower costs to attract more consumers
As I said - buying across state lines isn't likely to increase competition ("Competition will decrease...") - so your argument is misdirected.
just as it has in auto-insurance (which has plenty small business/local insurers in the market despite the national market place)
Again - embarassing...
if the minimum for health care didn't require my premium to cover myriad situations for which I am at 0 risk for
It doesn't. Of the 10 required benefits, the only one that is partially said of is the maternity benefit, but, even though you may not be likely to get pregnant, you are likely to pose a similar risk as others in your age group for complicity in, shall we say, acts which potentially result in the use of said benefits... ;)
You can keep your insurance if you like it, but only if Washington likes it too.
Another common misconception. See my debate with Cartman here
By itself it would do much to make health care affordable for millions of uninsured people.
You're deluding yourself if you think it will make that big of a difference. A couple states already allow insurers from across states lines - with little interest from insurers (see my discussion here with FromWithin.) On what sources are you basing your guesstimate of impact?
Something the Affordable Care Act has failed to do by your own sources.
My sources showed that the growth in premiums, deductibles, and deductibles as a percent of median income have all slowed since the passage of the ACA, and that medical inflation is the lowest in 50 years. We subsidize those with low-incomes, have guaranteed issue, and provide no-deductible preventative tests.
Health care is vastly more accessible (and accessed) than before.
I can't really say that I am surprised that you didn't, or aren't able to, read and understand references (or, even better, actually know what you're talking about).
"With or without changes to federal law, states already have full authority to decide whether or not to allow sales across state lines and, if so, under what circumstances. For example, a state may allow the sale of policies from insurers in any other state or choose to allow out-of-state insurers on a more limited basis, such as from neighboring states. In addition, states have the ability to determine which regulatory and enforcement functions remain under their jurisdiction."
"To date, although all states have long had the authority to do so, only six have enacted across state lines legislation. Georgia, Maine and Wyoming enacted legislation allowing the sale of insurance across state lines. In addition, Maine and Wyoming encourage the formation of interstate compacts. After failed attempts to pass across state lines legislation, Kentucky, Rhode Island and Washington enacted legislation requiring their insurance departments (DOIs) to research and evaluate the feasibility of allowing the sale of policies across state lines or forming interstate compacts."
"Of the three states requiring feasibility studies, only two states completed such studies. Officials in both states—Kentucky and Washington—concluded that there were significant roadblocks to implementation. Regulators took no further action and neither legislature enacted subsequent across state lines legislation."
"The two states that have implemented across state lines laws, Georgia and Wyoming, reported similar challenges. No out-of-state insurers have entered either of these markets or indicated their intent to do so as a result of the states’ across state lines legislation. Maine officials reported that no out-of-state insurers have yet indicated their intent to enter the market under Maine’s new across state lines law."
They not only have been able to pass laws allowing insurers from across state lines, a couple of states already have, yet insurers have so far not been very interested.
You said people should pay their bills - which is more likely to happen under the new rules than the old. (Which is why the Heritage Foundation came up with the individual mandate in the first place - personal responsibility, etc.)
I never said the prior system was perfect, just much better than Government involvement.
In what way(s)?
If Democrats would have ever allowed competition across state borders for insurance, the cost of insurance would have been cheaper.
A) states were already able to allow out of state insurance companies to sell insurance in their state before ACA
B) ACA specifically allows states to join health care choice compacts (Sec. 1333)
C) The ACA specifically states that there will be at least two Multi-State Providers (Sec. 1334)
D) The main reason costs can be (slightly) cheaper when buying across state lines is by providing worse overall insurance. Are you going to be as likely to dispute claim dispositions if you have to travel to another state (possibly clear across the country)? Competition will decrease since it is much easier for a small player or newcomer to raise the initial capital necessary for a statewide pool than a national one. The likely course is that most insurers will consentrate in one small state which already has laws favorable to their industry rather than their consumers, use their consolidated lobbying power to push for even more lop-sided legislation and threaten to leave said state and take jobs with them whenever they don't get their way. Obamacare tries to strike a balance by allowing interstate sale, allowing states to opt out of national plans, ensuring minimum coverage, etc.
want our freedoms upheld
it's only a freedom/right if it applies even when the majority doesn't like it.
It's amazing how other group's rights are not deserving of special marriage rights. Just your's.
Off base on all counts. I'm not gay, and I support marriage for lots of groups including polygamists. Note: not special marriage rights - the same marriage rights. As I said previously: "The criteria should be knowing consent and limiting harm to others"
our faith not twisted
you are free to twist your own faith however you like - mormons can choose not to allow blacks, christians can bar women from leadership and not marry gays, etc. all you want in my opinion. I don't consider it moral, but I don't think it should illegal (see how that works).
No need to make a mockery of our marriage laws designed for a man and woman.
Correction, marriage laws were designed by and for a man - they adapted to allow greater rights/responsibilities for women through the same types of pressure as those in support of gay marriage today. (see coverture law)
Sometimes things have to be done concurrently. In order to phase out pre-existing conditions, you also need to make sure people are in the market while they are healthy. If you are going to mandate coverage, you may need to subsidize those at the low end, etc - see this for a longer explanation.
A huge problem was the legal structure that supported monopolies within states.
Not exactly sure what you are referring to here - can you elaborate?