Wrong on both counts raj/Ian/blah sockpuppet. You have yet to prove you are worthy of debate. You have some atoning to do for the past statements you’ve made; get serious, atone and reenter the world of civilized debate.

Or, as you’ve done for the last 5-6 weeks, continue to carp from beyond the pall and be dismissed. Your choice. You don’t call the shots, raj/Ian/blah, with your continued dishonest conduct.

MightyRighty Matty from Michigan #21, like Robert “No-Facts” Novak, presents no facts to counter my contentions in #19. The very odd thing is that the Sueddeutsche Zeitung (Munich’s newspaper of record) coincidentally this very morning had several articles along the lines that I had described yesterday.

I guess MightyRighty Matty is indeed bereft of facts. Or he wishes to ignore facts that do not conform to his preconceived notions.

If that is State law, then unmarried heterosexual couples have an option for receiving benefits that gay couples do not — get married!

There’s no “unintended” consequence of the law in this regard, and an equal protection argument should win the day with Ms. Scott-Moore sorely disappointed.

Seriously, though… We are the only fully developed, industrialized country in the world, other than South Africa, that doesn’t provide healthcare for its citizens. We could design a system which would be the envy of the world if the powers that be would just acknowledge the importance and urgency of this need and frigging cooperate with each other (meaning the “big, bad” inusrance execs and the poiticians)! It wouldn’t have to be exactly like the systems they have in Europe and Canada. Those systems aren’t working all that well these days, anyway. I would like to see a compromise. First, cover ALL children under 18, for everything, period. Second, nationalize the types of care that are really essential for our well being, and that keep us going — heavily subsidize catastrophic conditions for patients (i.e. major surgeries, chemo/radiation treatments for cancer, etc.). Also heavily subsidize long term, prescription drugs for chronic conditions. For everything in between, charge the patients. In other words, charge much higher patient co-pays for those conditions “in-between” hangnail and catastrophic. Also charge patients more for short term prescriptions. We would still have a chunk of our own hard-earned $ going to big biz — the insurance companies and the pharmacueticals — but maybe, just MAYbe, with a system such as this (or similar), middle/upper middle income people/families wouldn’t be driven into bankruptcy just becuase mom had to have her galbladder out. Slight exageration there, but it’s getting to that point in the U.S.!! — where even upper middle class income earners are feeling the pinch. Many middle class/poorer families can’t begin to afford health insurance becuase of the ungodly premiums, let alone pay out of pocket for anything major. I think it’s an abomination that hoards of our honored senior citizens have to make treks to Canada and Mexico just to get affordable prescription medications — the same gd drugs that we take, made by the same drug companies!! Can you believe this, in the most powerful, plentiful nation in the world??! And yes, companies, and all fed., state, and local govt’s should be required to provide spousal benefits to GLBT partners, but if we had nationalized healthcare, spousal/partner benefits would be a non-issue. Something’s got to give, and eventually, it will.

One of the things that the MightyRighty Matty from Michigan apparently fails to recognize is that General Motors and Ford, two of the primary employers from his (presumptive) home state of Michigan, are pretty much already “under water” from their pension and health-care promises to their retirees, and will probably be in Chapter 11 (that’s bankruptcy) in the not too distant future to get rid of those obligations.

Unless, of course, the companies can throw their obligations off onto the federal taxpayer. (Which they can and probably will do, as I will describe.)

So, what does that mean? It pretty much means socialization of retiree benefits (via the federal government’s Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.) and medical care (via Medicare, et al.), regardless of whether or not the MightyRighties want it to happen. The problem that federal taxpayers have is the fact that the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.–since its inception in the early 1970s–hasn’t been charging the corporations, whose pension benefits that they are supposedly guaranteeing, a reasonable premium based on actuarial data. In other words, and to put it succincly, the federal government and the federal taxpayer have been subsidizing corporations’ profligate operations.

And, after GM and Ford go Chapter 11 to get rid of these pension and medical-care obligations, the whole house of cards of the MightyRighties will come tumblin’ down. It really is as simple as that.

bzzzzzt, try again raj. Your debate card is being held at the front desk.

Still no response to my comment. No surprise. You have no response. I am correct, and you, MightyRighty, are not.

On the subject of the post, I hate to give Danny of LaLaLand, das Land des HappyEnds, a grammar lesson. But, let’s proceed. Danny of LaLaLand wrote:

I believe company policies (i) which offer benefits to both same-sex and different-sex couples are anti-marriage because they put couples shacking up together on the same level as married couples, as employees don’t need to get married to have the benefits of marriage. Since states (ii) do not recognize same-sex unions, companies(iii), (iv) which extend benefits to such unions (and not different-sex unmarried couples) correct for (v) a flaw in government policy. I understand that some such policies have sunset provisions to take effect when the state recognizes same-sex unions.

Indicia added, of course, for Danny’s benefit.

Let’s understand something. (i) should have been “that” instead of “which,” as any proper American grammarian would tell you. The same with (iv).

(ii) is obviously incorrect. Not grammatically incorrect, but substantively incorrect. I suppose that DannyBoi forgot about VT, MA and CT. (Comes from living in LaLaLand, I guess.) The problem, that Danny apparently wishes to ignore is the fact that his beloved National Republikanische Partei wants to ignore the decisions of the states that want to recognize same-sex unions.

(iv) is, indeed a grammatical error. It should be “companies that,” not “companies, which“.

Regarding (v), well of course it is a flaw in government policy. In your government policy. And what do you propose to do about it? Why, it is obvious. Vote the same people in who provided you with a flawed government policy.

Thanks, Danny, for your support. Don’t expect much from me when you next come a’callin’.

It’s ok ndtovent. It won’t happen in this decade… the Democrats will need to control all three branches of govt to get that kind of welfare extension up and operating.

Great idea, MM!! I’ve been saying that for years! The sooner we get nationalized healthcare for EVEryone, the better off we’ll all be.

Ah, another concession from the MightyRighty from Michigan. That’s at least two on the same page here.

You have a task at hand, sockpuppet. Atone. Do that, I welcome your input in the debate. Of course you can lure others into debate –their choice entirely. But for me, raj, your past conduct puts you beyond the pale.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pal2.htm

Synova, here in Michigan we allow care givers a $4,500 tax credit for part of the expenses used to take care of an elderly family member in their home –frankly, we ought to make it about $25K tax DEDUCTION…

I am unfamiliar with the state income tax structure in Michigan, but it strikes me that both of these would primarily benefit high-income Michiganders. I suspect, but cannot prove, that the state income tax credit that you are referring to is not a “refundable” credit, such as the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (“EITC”), which gives the taxpayer money back if the amount of the credit is higher than the income tax owed. And a US$25K tax deduction for state income tax purposes might be nice, but only if someone earns more that, say US$25K. Assuming that we are referring to retirees, that amount might include pensions and earnings from investments (and their earnings from being greeters at Wal-Mart), but it would not include, for example, social security payments.

Moreover, I suspect, but cannot prove, that the state income tax credit (and your proposed US$25K tax deduction) would be for out of pocket expenses that are actually paid to third-party care-givers. That means that, if a person cannot afford to pay a third party care-giver to provide care, he or she will not qualify for either the credit or the deduction. If that person either chooses to, or, by finanicial circumstances is required to, provide care him- or her-self, he or she is out of luck with your proposal.

So, to put it succinctly, the people who would primarily benefit from the Michigan plan (as exists or as amended as you propose) are those who are most likely to least need the financial help from the credit OR the deduction.

BTW, regarding “our community,” what is your proposal as to what should be done with a gay person who requires care, but who has no family? No children. No parents. Maybe there’s a 3d cousin twice removed, but I doubt very seriously that they would be interested in providing care, unless they might inherit something from the gay person. Income tax credits and income tax deductions don’t really provide much solace in that situation.

What we shouldn’t do is move those costs over to private insurance programs just because a progressive company has a policy of extending benefits to domestic partners… and we shouldn’t reward str8 couples who shack up.

More than anything, this case and Dan’s post ought to make us– the gay community– pause for a moment and realize that advocating public policy sometimes has unintended consequences that “bites” our community in the end. When the Democrats in Michigan thought it’d be politically prudent to add domestic partner prohibitions to the anti-gay marriage Amendment –and thereby get a broader base of support for voting against the Amendment– little did they know that they’d just encourage a larger margin of defeat at the polls and little corporate contribution to the effort to defeat the proposal.

You’re right, we need to adopt policies that encourage cooperation in the family unit. And I’d add, avoid policies which pander to the self-interests of the few.

That’s not to say that insurance and employee benefits can absorb unlimited payouts. It’s a serious problem. It would just be nice if a realistic solution that *encouraged* domestic cooperation could be found… where the incentives favor co-dependance and pooling resources rather than splintering family resources or punishing people for supporting family members beyond the nuclear.

Unfortuantely there are an awful lot of sick people on the Left who would like to see Grannie Ruth get her daughter’s medical benefits… or Uncle Raj get those benefits for the 14 yr old Indonesian HouseBoy… heck, let’s just shortcut all this nonsense and mandate the govt to pay for medical insurance for all, life insurance for all, sick leave for all, worker comp for all even if your don’t work and all of it should all be done on a -0- copay basis. Oh wait, Hillary’s already made that recommendation when she was Co-President of the United States? Nevermind, then.

Heck, why don’t we just take over the insurance industry and their private reserves so that gays and shacked-up singles can have access to full benefits… govt could manage that kind of public benefit like they do Social Security.

With the savings from removing the evil profit margin that greedy insurance companies require, we can extend it to the multiple spousal unions, the barn yard serial daters and others later… when those victims get the ACLU to sue on the basis of denial of civil rights.

I just knew when the Y extended the definition of “Family” to include unmarried people residing at the same home, it’d be a slippery slope from which society would never recover… and ultimately cost taxpayers in the end.

Here’s to a fast slide down the trough on a cushion of mud!

No wonder the folks on the Right call it a culture war. We continue to make a farce of societal institutions to a point where no one save the 2d century Roman elite will recognize what motivates the people of this land. Self interest for all!

As for heterosexual living together, I will admit that most people I know who are heterosexual and living together choose not to marry, because they dont value the institution very much-extending benefits to them, reinforces this belief, although I think a company will have a hard time defending why gays but not heterosexuals in these situations.

If states permitted civil unions or marriages, then company’s could simply say-you have to have a civil union or marriage if you want benefits period.

I do recall not long after Mass started recognizing gay marriages that some company’s dropped their domestic partner benefits, and a lot of people were outraged over it. Most of the outrage I thought was pure whining. But I did feel badly for the homosexual couples that lived in NH but commuted to Mass for work.

But I think companies actually have a vested interest in encouraging states to sanction gay unions.

Identity Politics will always end up twisting us into pretzels.

We should have advocated, all along, for “A civil union benefit that applies to a monogamous union of two people who are not allowed by law to be married – a benefit that will be sunsetted when and if they are ever allowed to be married.”

No polygamists, please. No Aunt Frida and Housekeeper Sally – nope, not a monogamous union. No Jack and Fred and William and Malcolm – we don’t do polygamy here. No to Calvin and his Beloved Cow – keep bestiality hidden in the barn, please.