special privileges

[Dr.Who]

Which is why health insurance is not the answer. Health care is the answer, and it needs to be universal, just like it is in every other advanced nation on Earth.

You know, all of those nations that pay less than we do, yet have a better outcome.

It is still highly debatable that they spend less and have better outcomes.

And quite frankly that sounds like "But mom all the other kids are doing it." They might be doing it but maybe their constitutions allow it.

 

[Dr.Who]

If a person lies to SS about their age and collects some money, they will pay it back with fines and interest. It would be very difficult to do so, as a birth certificate would have to be used, but should an individual defraud the government in that way, they would pay dearly and would most likely do some jail time.

...and more relevant to our discussion medicare would be right to deny them whatever service they requested. Fraud on your application is a valid reason to have medical bills denied. If there is a dispute about whether or not there is fraud then ideally a third party should resolve the dispute. Gov exist to be that third party to protect the rights of citizens. when gov is also a provider of service they have a conflict of interest and cannot be an impartial third party.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well this thread is officially hijacked. And I am just as much to blame as anyone else.

On the bright side I have enjoyed talking with you, PLC, in a somewhat private thread.

 

[PLC1]

Well this thread is officially hijacked. And I am just as much to blame as anyone else.

On the bright side I have enjoyed talking with you, PLC, in a somewhat private thread.

Yes, we kind of did get off the subject, didn't we?

So, do gays get special privileges, or not?

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, we kind of did get off the subject, didn't we?

So, do gays get special privileges, or not?

Well, no one should get special privileges. And I do not believe that they are getting any right now, well by law anyway.

But laws should restrict rights only as necessary and then only in the least intrusive way possible. The person who wants to drive must need a license to protect the rights of those he might hit while driving. The blind person won't be driving so does not need a license. The state does not need to determine who is blind and who is not until they apply for a license.

It just makes no sense to tell gay people that they can't get married unless they have a state license. Rights exist before the state recognized them and the gays should not have their rights restricted by making them subject to any laws that are not there to protect the rights of others. I fail to see how two gays engaging in sex or having a marriage ceremony infringes on the rights of others - so no license needed. let all people who want to get married apply if they want a license. If there is a chance they might procreate in that union let them say so and then get their license. If there is no chance that they will procreate then no license needed.

Now opposite sex couples are a different story. they too should apply for a license if they want to and if there is a chance that they will procreate let them say so and then get their license. If there is no chance that they will then no license needed.

Special privileges for straights though is the topic of this thread. It is true that they are treated differently. But then again so is the blind person who wants to drive. The question is are they given any privileges that they should not be given?

 

[PLC1]

Well, no one should get special privileges. And I do not believe that they are getting any right now, well by law anyway.

But laws should restrict rights only as necessary and then only in the least intrusive way possible. The person who wants to drive must need a license to protect the rights of those he might hit while driving. The blind person won't be driving so does not need a license. The state does not need to determine who is blind and who is not until they apply for a license.

It just makes no sense to tell gay people that they can't get married unless they have a state license. Rights exist before the state recognized them and the gays should not have their rights restricted by making them subject to any laws that are not there to protect the rights of others. I fail to see how two gays engaging in sex or having a marriage ceremony infringes on the rights of others - so no license needed. let all people who want to get married apply if they want a license. If there is a chance they might procreate in that union let them say so and then get their license. If there is no chance that they will procreate then no license needed.

Now opposite sex couples are a different story. they too should apply for a license if they want to and if there is a chance that they will procreate let them say so and then get their license. If there is no chance that they will then no license needed.



Special privileges for straights though is the topic of this thread. It is true that they are treated differently. But then again so is the blind person who wants to drive. The question is are they given any privileges that they should not be given?

Try as I might, I can't find anything to disagree with.

And, of course, I've tried very hard.

No, straights are not given privileges that they should not be given.