Posted on 11/03/2005 5:33:03 AM PST by TaxRelief
...Without protease inhibitors or other new drugs, the average cost of care for a persons with AIDS exceeds $20,000/year in many locations. - aids.org
When you add the inhibitors and new drugs, the costs go through the roof, but are not included, so they can hide them in other appropriations for "programs".
What evidence do you have to support this? Or is this just justification to support your obvious anger issues?
You seriously doubt that a high-risk group like homosexuals could have a comparable health care cost to the non-high-risk population?
Things like rampant meth use, unprotected sex with multiple anonomous partners, fisting, felching, foreign body insertion, feces consumption etc probably would have no affect on healthcare costs in your estimation, right? Yikes!
We'll skip the anger issue portion as it is not applicable, joiky.
My husband is covered under my family policy at work. Two years ago my parent company requested his life time medical records. I was told they were considering a new insurance company and needed to see information on his cancer prognosis and treatment. I was the only one in our office of 30 people to be required to do this - also the only one with a covered person having a serious disease. I called my lawyer thinking they had violated my privacy by looking at my Dr. bills to know he had cancer and that I surely couldn't be required to give them more than 50 years of his medical files. I was told I didn't have to give them the records but that to be realistic, if I didn't, they would find a way to get rid of me. I compromised and gave only the records since the onset of his cancer. Still tics me off.
Why have health care provided by a company at all? There is only one reason: Because, having hired and trained a worker, it is helpful to the company if that worker stays healthy and shows up for work.
So, if the only reason to provide health care is to keep your workers healthy, why wouldn't you start by hiring people that will stay healthy?
I'm sure the real problem with health care in this country will be revealed by Michael Moore when his new movie comes out. <laughing>
In my experience, bad health or medical problems is NOT a good filter. The majority of the chronically absent are absent for headaches, colds, hangovers, or just plain don't-feel-like-it.
You love thinkin' about this stuff, huh!
~rolls eyes~
And while we're at it, let's keep the smokers out of our workplaces too, since as it happens, smokers and homosexual men lose a similar amount of life expectancy: On average, homosexual men die 8 to 20 years prematurely, while smokers die 13 years prematurely on average.
Actually employers are already barring smokers and it's completely legal for employers to do so. They can actually fire you for smoking at home not just at work. Companies are doing this because they don't want to bear the costs of smokers on their health plans.
In many places, employers can discriminate based on sexual orientation. In Louisville Kentucky a few years ago, they were debating a gay rights ordinance (for employment), and its opponents kept saying the homsexuals didn't need "special rights," that there wasn't discrimination on sexual orientation. Then some Baptist relief organization (that operated on city contracts) fired a lesbian when she was inadvertantly outed. It became clear they had every right to do that, she had no grounds to sue. So suddenly the "special rights" argument fell apart. The gay rights ordinance passed (ironically including a clause allowing religious employers to discriminate, so that the lesbian wouldn't have been protected by the new law). Many jurisdictions now have similar laws -- but most jurisdictions do not.
Really, no, I do not like to think of stuff like that. I was merely trying to provide examples of why healthcare costs would likely be far higher than for the general population.
Thruth be told, I have no problems with homosexuals. If they weren't so In-Your-Face about their own private lives and in the schools pushing their agenda, there wouldn't be much to discuss, would there? I am not anti-gay, but I do oppose their anti-normal agenda.
Smokers have to pay a higher premium for life insurance. Would itnot be fair to so the same for gays?
I oppose people bringing up x-rated topics on threads that have absolutely no call for such discussion.
Especially when they (you) are the types who screech about homos being 'indecent'.
Well, darling, you've been cruder this morning than any homo I've ever talked to, you've brought up acts that aren't typically mentioned in polite society, and I don't see any homos around.
So I can only think you just love talking about it.
It depends on the state. In Delaware they are perfectly able to do just that - as much as there have been battles going on to change that.
They have been debating similar legislation in Delaware for a number of years. Interestingly enough, because of an Executive Order issued some years back by a former Governor only people applying for or with state jobs are protected from discrimination including sexual orientation or tobacco use among other things.
Honestly I don't think the government should be telling private sector employers who they can or can not hire.
No, I'm not easily offended at all. I just don't understand the need for such language. Do you have to put others down to increase your self-esteem?
Corporations are a creation of, and exist at the sufferance of, government, and in exchange for various tax and operational boons from the government, they are subject to various restrictions and regulation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.