Let me remind you, neocons, this is an extremely large group. Not one likely to go away. Not one likely to go limp. Not one likely to move to France or Canada or Russia. We are US Citizens, we will fight for change of a positive nature. Get used to it.
Actually A.C. Alf, I think there is national insurance, but probably not the conventional kind you might expect.
If you look at the financial statements of most major hospitals in the U.S., you will find a major expense is unreimbursed services. Much of that results from use of services by people without a regular physician, few assets, and low income, who use emergency rooms in lieu of a personal physician.
Aside from that, billings are wierd. If you have doubt, ask your service provider how much you will pay for a given service if you pay by check and if you pay via Blue Cross. You may be surprised. Normally, large insurers use leverage to reduce their costs, which tends to shift more costs to smaller insurers and individuals.
As a basic precept, medical service providers must meet costs to stay in business. So, when one person receives services "free", the real cost becomes part of the overhead to the provider, and those who actually pay cover the fixed and variable costs of their service, including costs for non-payers.
In my view, there is too much paperwork and complexity involved in medical care and government subsidization makes no more sense than would government subsidization of other necessities (e.g., transportation, food, clothing, a house). Having others pay (e.g., insurers paying for routine physical checkups, eyewear, dental checkups, etc.) increases healthcare inefficiencies. Also increasing inefficiencies are factors such as ridiculous lawsuits founded on the supposition only insurers lose (when we should know insurers merely pass the cost along, doctors practice aggressively defensive medicine, doctor-patient relationships become strained/adversarial, ...).
So there is much room for improvement, but having the U.S. Government follow the Canada model isn't the answer.
My my... Now if we can only get FiBs to agree that some level of medical insurance should be a right for all americans, maybe we can forge an example for a bipartisan agreement.
Actually, a basic level of medical insurance should not depend on job affiliation or wealth. As for 'marraige', it should be a statistical cost factor, just as 'child' is. Somehow, I don't personally think a man/woman marraige has the same costing as a same sex marraige. And it does not have the same social significance and purpose. Maybe what is needed is a new word defining a same sex co habitation and address the social needs of that combination. There is no reason to abscond with the English word, marraige, for a same sex co habitation.
Thanks for the new word!
I'll try to use it, but it won't be easy.
Sounds pretty specific to the legal profession.
Aside to Mr. Bear, so Georgia pulled out all the estoppels in '97? Okay, that was a try.
As Michael didn't answer your question/concern regarding the effect on child support due to the dissolution of common law marriage, let me. And FWIW, I am indeed licensed to and do practice law with substantial domestic relations experience.
Over the last 15-30 years there has been something of revolution in child support. At least 15 years ago, the federal gov't stepped in and mandated all state's adopt guidelines for child support and that these be applied whether or not a child was born with or without the benefit of wedlock. :-).
REGARDING: Are you saying you don't believe in the concept of "common law" marriage? BTW, are you a lawyer?
RESPONSE: Common sense coupled with partnership and agency law would suggest that common-law marriage by estoppel is rational.
A couple, which holds itselt out, i.e. acts like, as a married couple should be considered as married given a requisite period acting as such, e.g., three years. It used to be seven years in California.
Having said that, we know that state law reigns supreme.
CAN A COUPLE BECOME LEGALLY MARRIED BY LIVING TOGETHER AS MAN AND WIFE UNDER GEORGIA�S LAWS?
No, as of January 1, 1997. Marriages entered into prior to that date are valid.
[Note: a couple legally married at common law in another state is regarded as married in all states.]
Are you saying you don't believe in the concept of "common law" marriage? BTW, are you a lawyer?
Georgia, I think, just struck down their common law provision, which went out with the gay marriage provision. Ending the long history of common law marriages will be very detrimental to questions of child support in Georgia. Won't it?
REGARDING: I was trying to find a legal way to provide medical insurance to a significant other.
RESPONSE: Angel..., I can appreciate the need, but not the appropriateness.
REGARDING: It does not seem fair to me that the institution of marriage alone offers that perk.
RESPONSE: Marriage is a societal institution, rooted in a society's need for stability and order, and based upon the facts that there are about 50% of each, males and females, and that it requires a male and a female to create children, therefore, the natural evolution of marriage consisting of one male and one female.
REGARDING: Actually, later, I suggested each person should be allowed to name one other person to enjoy insurance privileges.
RESPONSE: A bandage approach to the problem.
REGARDING: Actually, later, I suggested simply National Insurance for all.
RESPONSE: That is the solution.
Further, properly constructed, it would make our businesses more competitive with offshore competition, i.e., not only is it morally correct, but it is consistent with capitalism.
The concept is to shift an expense, which is a component of 'cost of sales', to an increase in income taxes.