Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Because they are not my personal traditions.  They are traditions that have been established by humanity as a whole over thousands of years of civilization.
6/4/2012 11:28 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 6/4/2012 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/4/2012 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Seems like a pretty small sample size. 

Anyway, should we legalize drug use and suicide since neither would have any affect on others?
Wait, so what's your sample size for the big increase in benefit payments?

I think we should legalize drug use and suicide.

Well, since married folk are eligible for benefits from their spouse, it stands to reason that allowing another subset of society to marry will increase payouts.   No?

Fair enough.  You're a moron but I think most of us felt that way already.    I know I want to be killed by some guy legally tweaking on meth and/or pay medical bills for years on people who can't quite get suicide right.

6/4/2012 11:31 AM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 6/4/2012 11:24:00 AM (view original):
You are free to live your life by those traditional values Why does someone else have to live according to the traditions you value?
Laws are always based on societal norms.
6/4/2012 11:40 AM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Lets try this analogy.

You own a chicken. You snap its neck and cook and eat it.

Try it with your dog.

Differences matter.
6/4/2012 11:41 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Meh, poor analogy.   Hunters treat their dogs like property(which they are).   They can't hunt, they shoot them and toss the carcass in the woods.   I don't particularly care for that but it's not looked upon as "cruel" by society.    I can't imagine people would object much if they cooked the dog and ate it. 
6/4/2012 11:49 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/4/2012 11:31:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 6/4/2012 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/4/2012 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Seems like a pretty small sample size. 

Anyway, should we legalize drug use and suicide since neither would have any affect on others?
Wait, so what's your sample size for the big increase in benefit payments?

I think we should legalize drug use and suicide.

Well, since married folk are eligible for benefits from their spouse, it stands to reason that allowing another subset of society to marry will increase payouts.   No?

Fair enough.  You're a moron but I think most of us felt that way already.    I know I want to be killed by some guy legally tweaking on meth and/or pay medical bills for years on people who can't quite get suicide right.

Maybe.  Gay people are already eligible for social security and medicare when they are single.  The only increase will be social security for surviving spouses. Considering the increased government revenue from allowing the marriages, the relatively tiny portion of the population that will qualify for additional social security seems like a good trade off.

So you're saying there's a governmental interest in keeping suicide illegal? Fair enough, let's keep it illegal.  Where is the governmental interest in keeping gay marriage banned?




6/4/2012 12:55 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 6/4/2012 11:28:00 AM (view original):
Because they are not my personal traditions.  They are traditions that have been established by humanity as a whole over thousands of years of civilization.
And remind me again what the big problem is if the tradition changes to include an additional 3% of the population?
6/4/2012 12:58 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

It's the spousal eligibility that presents the problem, IMO.    You're ignoring healthcare costs(maybe you assume Obamacare will have a long and happy run) but insurance companies stay in business by making sure their premiums are more than their expenses.    So, really, costs are just passed on to the consumer.  Surviving spousal SS may not be a big deal, I honestly have no idea how many gays want to marry.   But, if the payout for insurance/SS costs isn't that much due to the limited participants, the increased revenue won't be much either. 

The government interest in keeping suicide illegal is probably akin to the government interest in keeping people fed.   People dying of anything but old age is probably a sign of a less than effective system.   Can't have a system upheaval.     But, for me, I see increased health care costs for druggies and failed suicides.  That can only be paid for by the taxpayer. 

6/4/2012 1:03 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/4/2012 1:03:00 PM (view original):

It's the spousal eligibility that presents the problem, IMO.    You're ignoring healthcare costs(maybe you assume Obamacare will have a long and happy run) but insurance companies stay in business by making sure their premiums are more than their expenses.    So, really, costs are just passed on to the consumer.  Surviving spousal SS may not be a big deal, I honestly have no idea how many gays want to marry.   But, if the payout for insurance/SS costs isn't that much due to the limited participants, the increased revenue won't be much either. 

The government interest in keeping suicide illegal is probably akin to the government interest in keeping people fed.   People dying of anything but old age is probably a sign of a less than effective system.   Can't have a system upheaval.     But, for me, I see increased health care costs for druggies and failed suicides.  That can only be paid for by the taxpayer. 

What additional health care costs??? If a gay person remains single, they will still need health care.

And what's the interest in banning gay marriage?
6/4/2012 1:07 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I went 8-10 years without healthcare.   Was I doing something illegal?

What's the interest in allowing it?   Like suicide and drug use, it doesn't affect anyone else.  
6/4/2012 1:09 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/4/2012 1:09:00 PM (view original):
I went 8-10 years without healthcare.   Was I doing something illegal?

What's the interest in allowing it?   Like suicide and drug use, it doesn't affect anyone else.  
1. No.  Not sure what your point is.

2. You just made the argument that legalizing suicide will affect others.
6/4/2012 1:11 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
1.  So you agree that this is a false statement?  "If a gay person remains single, they will still need health care."  

The increased cost comes with being added to a spouse's company insurance.

2.  I think it will.  You seemed to think that drug use and/or suicide would not.   Remember?  I called you a moron for your mentally deficient stance on legalizing both on the grounds that it doesn't affect anyone else.

6/4/2012 1:19 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/4/2012 1:19:00 PM (view original):
1.  So you agree that this is a false statement?  "If a gay person remains single, they will still need health care."  

The increased cost comes with being added to a spouse's company insurance.

2.  I think it will.  You seemed to think that drug use and/or suicide would not.   Remember?  I called you a moron for your mentally deficient stance on legalizing both on the grounds that it doesn't affect anyone else.

1. Last I checked there is no "free coverage for spouses" from insurance companies.  They still charge premium.  It's up to the employer to decide how much of the cost they choose to pay for spousal coverage.

There is nothing false about the statement.  Everyone in their lifetime will need health care of some sort.  Everybody gets sick.

2.  I said suicide should be legal without commenting on its affect on others.  You made the argument that it affects others.  I agree it does affect others and is therefore not analogous to gay marriage.
6/4/2012 1:29 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 6/4/2012 1:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/4/2012 1:19:00 PM (view original):
1.  So you agree that this is a false statement?  "If a gay person remains single, they will still need health care."  

The increased cost comes with being added to a spouse's company insurance.

2.  I think it will.  You seemed to think that drug use and/or suicide would not.   Remember?  I called you a moron for your mentally deficient stance on legalizing both on the grounds that it doesn't affect anyone else.

1. Last I checked there is no "free coverage for spouses" from insurance companies.  They still charge premium.  It's up to the employer to decide how much of the cost they choose to pay for spousal coverage.

There is nothing false about the statement.  Everyone in their lifetime will need health care of some sort.  Everybody gets sick.

2.  I said suicide should be legal without commenting on its affect on others.  You made the argument that it affects others.  I agree it does affect others and is therefore not analogous to gay marriage.
1.  Try getting independent health coverage.  Compare the cost of being added to your spouse's company coverage and get back to me.

Maybe.  But the guy with no insurance will be responsible for his visits out of pocket.

2.   Then why were you for legalizing suicide?
6/4/2012 1:35 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/4/2012 1:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 6/4/2012 1:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/4/2012 1:19:00 PM (view original):
1.  So you agree that this is a false statement?  "If a gay person remains single, they will still need health care."  

The increased cost comes with being added to a spouse's company insurance.

2.  I think it will.  You seemed to think that drug use and/or suicide would not.   Remember?  I called you a moron for your mentally deficient stance on legalizing both on the grounds that it doesn't affect anyone else.

1. Last I checked there is no "free coverage for spouses" from insurance companies.  They still charge premium.  It's up to the employer to decide how much of the cost they choose to pay for spousal coverage.

There is nothing false about the statement.  Everyone in their lifetime will need health care of some sort.  Everybody gets sick.

2.  I said suicide should be legal without commenting on its affect on others.  You made the argument that it affects others.  I agree it does affect others and is therefore not analogous to gay marriage.
1.  Try getting independent health coverage.  Compare the cost of being added to your spouse's company coverage and get back to me.

Maybe.  But the guy with no insurance will be responsible for his visits out of pocket.

2.   Then why were you for legalizing suicide?
1.  Yes, for two reasons.  You're getting a group rate and it is often subsidized by the employer.

2. Because I think terminally ill people should be able to end their life when they are in pain.
6/4/2012 1:38 PM
◂ Prev 1...91|92|93|94|95...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.