Who’s getting tired of all the ads that are calling the proposals for Health Care reform “Socialized Medicine”? Even the most liberal approach to the reforms “Single Payer” is not at all socialized medicine. At most, it might me considered “socialized payment” or “socialized administration”. None of the plans call for socialized medicine, if you are one that falls for this misinformation then the Insurance Companies are getting just what they want from you.

A more realistic example of socialized medicine would be the British System, in which the hospitals are run by the government and the doctors are on the payroll of the government. Another example closer to home would be the VA in which the government provides the hospitals and the doctors to vets. What is being proposed here “Single Payer or a Government Option” is a system in which the federal program only takes the place of the insurance company and pays the bills to the doctors or the hospitals. This program is more analogous to the Canadian and French systems. The beauty of this program is that it takes away the insanity that doctors have to go thru in dealing with hundreds of separate carriers and it provides coverage for everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Do you really have a personal relationship with your insurance provider today? Do you even have a choice in which carrier you get? Most people don’t, they have to take whatever carrier their company provides for them. And then, once they take the carrier that is provided, they usually have to pick a doctor that is on the plan that the company offers. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound like a lot of free choice to me. You are being lied to by Insurance Companies. Single Payer will provide more choice and more cost savings to the average household. The only group that will suffer form this are the Insurance Carriers, and they will tell you every lie they can to stop it from being implemented. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for these companies. The way I see it, they are a big reason costs have escalated and quality of care has decreased over the last 30 years.

Patty:

Marriage happens to be a religious and God ordained institution that He set up for a a man and a woman together. Granted, you don't believe in God, but none the less, those who do, believe marriage is a definition for a man and a woman who pledge a devotion together and make a vow before God. Now, when a minority of society wants to change the definition of marriage to something they believe it is, to do so is to infringe on the rights of those who see it differently. Do gay people want to have a special committment to one another that's similar to marriage only they want to have 2 of the same sexes involved? Then they should come up with their own word for an institution such as theirs. They once called it a civil union. What's wrong with that? But no, they are not satisfied with just a 'civil union'. they want the religious people who KNOW that marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman to 'recognize' that they can be married also. Those of us who believe in God don't want our definition for marriage to be changed.

Kartman:

This is why I have said that I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Government should ONLY recognize Civil Unions and it should afford them all the same rights and benefits under the law. Marriage should be a component of religion. If one particular religion only recognizes M/F – fine, it only effects them. If another chooses to recognize same sex as well, that is fine too – it is for that particular congregation to deal with. There are plenty of people and denominations out there profess their belief in God just as adamantly as you do, yet they disagree with you on the definition of marriage. Feel free to disagree with them on it if you like, it is your belief versus theirs.

Patty:

Some Christians don't want Civil unions either. I for one, would prefer for gay people to stop doing what they are doing and see it for the sin that it is. But, there will always be people who do wrong in the world, and it would be impossible to stop it all, so, I say just let them do what they want. But they should not be allowed to change the definition of marriage. Some gay people believe that when they get married and say their vows before God that He is accepting of their committment to one another. God does not lie, and in his word, he says that homosexuality is a sin. He would never be accepting of sin of any kind. They are only fooling themselves. Unless of course they want to say their vows to a God other than thee God, Jesus.

It is NOT okay to have sex with the same sex as far as God and many Christians who follow Him are concerned. Period. He calls it a sin and to allow it is just as bad as allowing any other sin to be acceptable by society and made into law. Now, I understand that everyone sins. don't get me wrong, it's one thing to sin, it's quite another to demand that the world accept it as okay. We have this problem already with abortion in this country. The government has made it legal, and it is sinful to murder children. We don't need any more sins becomeing lawful.

Kartman:

Again, you are making a religious argument here. I asked you to give me a non-religious reason as to why we should ban Gay Marriage, or even Gay relationships. You can’t do it, because there is no reason to even worry about it if you take religion out of it. Look, I’m about as hetero as they come. The thought of Gay Sex confuses the hell out of me, I just don’t get it. However, I am pretty sure that Gay people feel the same way about hetero relationships. A Gay man just can’t envision himself with a woman. I absolutely see no reason to prevent him from feeling love for his partner. Same argument with abortion BTW, I see no legitimate non-religious argument against it. I’ll remind you of my previous argument that sins are sins and laws are laws. We are a country built on “the rule of law” not on “the rule of sins”.

Patty:

Apart from the bible: The family unit is that of a mom and a dad. Every study out there shows that both are needed in a relationship with children involved. The father brings one thing to the kids and the mother brings yet another. If everyone had samesex partners, how would children be brought into the world? Common sense shows that the best thing for a family is one mom and one dad. (God has the best plan for families and marriage) Also, once same sex marriage becomes accepted into a society, they will begin to incorporate the 2 men together or 2 women together with children in photos and words in our public school text books and infringe upon the rights of the religious majority who feel it is sinful and wrong and don't want their children to believe otherwise.

Kartman:

That my friend is a fairy tale. By that logic we should take children away from single parents because clearly they don’t fit the mold of a model family with a mom and dad. What are you afraid of with those 2 dad photos? Are you afraid that it will make all the nice little hetero kids gay? Seriously? This is just pure homophobia. The vast majority of gay people are born gay – embracing them in society is not going to bring in any gay converts. Now, don’t fixate too much I my use of the term “vast majority” here. I do think there is a segment of the population that is bi-sexual/gender neutral/bi-curious – whatever. Those people may or may not be influenced by more sexual openness – in any event, I think they are a small segment of the gay community.

Why does it say my message is too short? I put my text in the body of the reply. Alas, even Lap Band Talk is not perfect.

Edited December 11, 200916 yr by KartMan

By that logic we should take children away from single parents because clearly they don’t fit the mold of a model family with a mom and dad.

Take them away? No. Once divorce happens, or a death of a partner happens, what can be done? But the fact is, it takes 2 people, a mom and a dad to make a child, therefore it takes 2 people to raise a child the best way. (emphasis on "the best way").

I’ll give you that it does take 2 people to “create” a child (although one can argue that with sperm and egg donors the people don’t even need to be together). I think your emphasis on “the best way” is naïve and shortsighted. We don’t live in a perfect cookie cutter world. Even if we did, there are tons of references of people that have done wonderfully in life with one parent, with gay parents, even no parents. Just as there are plenty of people that have failed society with a mom and dad in the home.

I would argue that the most important thing is that a child be reared in a safe, intellectually stimulating, nurturing, and loving environment. I see no conflict with that in a gay household.

AMEN, Kartman!!