How is vigour insurance for gay partner a correct point
hi there...i have a interrogate for my sociology class...here it is --
"Rising number of companies in the US are extending benefits such as health insurance to unmarried gay partner. Do you approve of this trend? Why or why not? Should companies extend benefits to cohabiting heterosexual partners?"
Answers:
I don't know much about your country, I see what you are saying and within a logical situation what you propose would be correct.
However, this isn't based on a logical scenario, it's based on a prejudiced agenda. Homosexual couples can not marry (legally, federally) so are disqualified to the same benefits as a hetrosexual married couple. A hetrosexual unmarried couple have the choice of becoming married, exceptions withstanding.
Therefore it is only fair that if homosexual couples cannot marry afterwards they should have benefits that can bridge the gap made by that stupid adaptation in the dictionary by a person who have spent less time reading it. Source(s): Great, who gave the babe-in-arms a bazooka?
It's extending coverage for EVERYONE. In a society were not various have health supervision, extending coverage for all couples, even those whose marriage or even existence is even recognizable by the government, helps Americans achieve proper health coverage.
In addition, vigour insurance companies can't discriminate over your lifestyle. If you're Muslim, you still have coverage. Same with human being gay.
straight partners have basically as much chance of getting aids or anything like that as gay partner so it shouldn't really matter
Well for starters the potential savings the US would gain from not having to pay envelope health cost for uninsured partnered gay people. I do agree near the trend of insurance companies extending benefits to domestic partners regardless of their orientation. My partner and I have to sign a legal affidavit that we were within a domestic partnership and provide financil evidence of our partnership i.e. mortgages, banking accounts, investments, once that was completed my together family was covered below my insurance, thus covering our two children as well. Isn't it nice knowing that if God forbid something happened to one of my kids that the American ethnic group won't have to foot that bill. Remember the hospital bill for just one severly premature babe born in the US can and does easily top a million dollars. And thats freshly one example, Heart surgery, long term care for cronic illnesses such as diabetes are a huge burden on the US. And we adjectives ready know that medicaid and medicare are in serious trouble.
Now after adjectives of that reasoning my final answer is discrimination is wrong period, if you proffer insurance benefits to hetrosexuals spouses then I deserve the same right to enjoy it offered to mine. Equal rights are not special rights.
L
good report for us, because i heard so many insurance companies don't want to nick the risk giving gays health insurance because they think we adjectives die with aids too often
To respectively their own, why shouldn't they have insurance benefits? Auto insurance companies have be doing this for years.
I approve of this trend for the reason that everyone needs form insurance. However, I also believe that heterosexual couples should get benefits as well, since it should not business who you are with when it comes down to things such as health benefits.
Because it shouldn't differ because of your sexual oriantion.
I think that it shouldn't situation who you are within a co-inhabited situation. I think everyone should hold a one person partnership option, whether gay, straight, elderly, friend...doesn`t matter what. I'm not for gay marriage really, but to deny someone the benefit of health option because of who they are with...that's not right. One person for one other individual regardless. There should be an option of one extra person on the policy as long as they repay the additional cost. Makes sense to me, even though I am a married woman. It's really of no concern to me. I just want everyone taken aid of...
If they do it for gay couples...they have to do it for cohabitating heterosexuals partners. lone fair
Related Questions:
"Rising number of companies in the US are extending benefits such as health insurance to unmarried gay partner. Do you approve of this trend? Why or why not? Should companies extend benefits to cohabiting heterosexual partners?"
Answers:
I don't know much about your country, I see what you are saying and within a logical situation what you propose would be correct.
However, this isn't based on a logical scenario, it's based on a prejudiced agenda. Homosexual couples can not marry (legally, federally) so are disqualified to the same benefits as a hetrosexual married couple. A hetrosexual unmarried couple have the choice of becoming married, exceptions withstanding.
Therefore it is only fair that if homosexual couples cannot marry afterwards they should have benefits that can bridge the gap made by that stupid adaptation in the dictionary by a person who have spent less time reading it. Source(s): Great, who gave the babe-in-arms a bazooka?
It's extending coverage for EVERYONE. In a society were not various have health supervision, extending coverage for all couples, even those whose marriage or even existence is even recognizable by the government, helps Americans achieve proper health coverage.
In addition, vigour insurance companies can't discriminate over your lifestyle. If you're Muslim, you still have coverage. Same with human being gay.
straight partners have basically as much chance of getting aids or anything like that as gay partner so it shouldn't really matter
Well for starters the potential savings the US would gain from not having to pay envelope health cost for uninsured partnered gay people. I do agree near the trend of insurance companies extending benefits to domestic partners regardless of their orientation. My partner and I have to sign a legal affidavit that we were within a domestic partnership and provide financil evidence of our partnership i.e. mortgages, banking accounts, investments, once that was completed my together family was covered below my insurance, thus covering our two children as well. Isn't it nice knowing that if God forbid something happened to one of my kids that the American ethnic group won't have to foot that bill. Remember the hospital bill for just one severly premature babe born in the US can and does easily top a million dollars. And thats freshly one example, Heart surgery, long term care for cronic illnesses such as diabetes are a huge burden on the US. And we adjectives ready know that medicaid and medicare are in serious trouble.
Now after adjectives of that reasoning my final answer is discrimination is wrong period, if you proffer insurance benefits to hetrosexuals spouses then I deserve the same right to enjoy it offered to mine. Equal rights are not special rights.
L
good report for us, because i heard so many insurance companies don't want to nick the risk giving gays health insurance because they think we adjectives die with aids too often
To respectively their own, why shouldn't they have insurance benefits? Auto insurance companies have be doing this for years.
I approve of this trend for the reason that everyone needs form insurance. However, I also believe that heterosexual couples should get benefits as well, since it should not business who you are with when it comes down to things such as health benefits.
Because it shouldn't differ because of your sexual oriantion.
I think that it shouldn't situation who you are within a co-inhabited situation. I think everyone should hold a one person partnership option, whether gay, straight, elderly, friend...doesn`t matter what. I'm not for gay marriage really, but to deny someone the benefit of health option because of who they are with...that's not right. One person for one other individual regardless. There should be an option of one extra person on the policy as long as they repay the additional cost. Makes sense to me, even though I am a married woman. It's really of no concern to me. I just want everyone taken aid of...
If they do it for gay couples...they have to do it for cohabitating heterosexuals partners. lone fair
Related Questions:
- What are the fundamental criticisms of the Obama administration's proposal for a public condition insurance program?
- Are visit to a Physician Assistant (PA) covered beneath medicare and condition insurance plans?
- How do I choose condition insurance?
- Do you surmise the form insurance bill will become ruling?
- Does an STD/HIV audition show up on your form insurance?