GOP President-Elect Donald Trump Says Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Settled' Law

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Who did it fail that it doesn't now?

And, how does this become a federal government function?

I know people with preexisting conditions. As for the federal government functions... are you willing to get rid of medicare and social security too?


Fact is there are tons of stuff the federal government does that it probably shouldn't.

[Norm Lenhart]

I know people with preexisting conditions. As for the federal government functions... are you willing to get rid of medicare and social security too?


Fact is there are tons of stuff the federal government does that it probably shouldn't.

Speaking as a person with a pre existing condition that the BS of Obamacare almost killed, I have no right to force my fellow Americans to fund my health issues nor do any of you have an obligation to keep me alive/healthy or anything else..

[Sanguine]

I know people with preexisting conditions. As for the federal government functions... are you willing to get rid of medicare and social security too?


Fact is there are tons of stuff the federal government does that it probably shouldn't.

People with pre-existing conditions can either pay more, take out a catastrophic plan* or go on medicaid if they can't afford the other two.  Being one of those people, I have had to think about that.

And, putting the feds in charge of medical care is wrong, anti-Constitutional and just asking for abuse.  Just because we have other questionable laws doesn't make this one any more right.

* I think the very reasonable and useful catastrophic plans may have been put out of business by 0care.

[Cripplecreek]

Speaking as a person with a pre existing condition that the BS of Obamacare almost killed, I have no right to force my fellow Americans to fund my health issues nor do any of you have an obligation to keep me alive/healthy or anything else..

As we said in 2009 or so, we need to stop Obamacare or people will become dependent on it and it will become another perpetual entitlement.

[chae]

Here's how it goes in Missouri:

To qualify for Medicaid you have to be under a certain income level,  AND you have to be Over 65, or blind, or disabled, or be under age 19, or have dependent children under 18 living in the household with you. 
To qualify for ACA you cannot be eligible for health insurance through an employer plan, if said plan meets minimum coverage guidelines set up for the government. 
To qualify for income tax credits to offset the cost of health insurance through the marketplace, you must make a minimum of about $13,000.  If you don't make that much (an in our rural area, lots here don't), the cheapest plan for you is about $500 or so with like a $10,000 deductible.
To put this in perspective, before ACA, I went to an agent and got health insurance for my son through Blue Cross Blue Shield for my son for less than $100 a month.
  As the ACA was written, it called for Medicaid expansion in every state for residents with incomes up to 133 percent of poverty.  But in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not be penalized for opting out of expansion, and Missouri is one of 19 states that has not yet taken steps to expand coverage.
 Because subsidies are only available in the exchange for people whose household incomes are at least 100 percent of poverty (since Medicaid was supposed to be available for those below that level), there are 147,000 people in Missouri who are in the coverage gap and have no realistic access to health insurance.  They aren’t eligible for Medicaid or for subsidies to offset the cost of private insurance.
And then we have these wonderful people like the woman I just talked to.  She qualifies for Medicaid, all she had to do was bring in a copy of her social security card so Medicaid could verify it.  I called her every day for 2 weeks, twice a day, each day, she was going to be bringing it in, she was on the way to bring it in.  She never did.  She owes this facility over $200,000 in medical bills and it's insane!  Emergency Rooms have to treat everyone, so we've got people coming in, rcving treatment and then walking out the door, and if you ask about paying, they literally laugh in your face. 
Sorry, it's been a rough day.

[Norm Lenhart]

As we said in 2009 or so, we need to stop Obamacare or people will become dependent on it and it will become another perpetual entitlement.

I think it's too late. The so called right wants some version of it already. Voting themselves largess and all.

[Sanguine]

Here's how it goes in Missouri:

To qualify for Medicaid you have to be under a certain income level,  AND you have to be Over 65, or blind, or disabled, or be under age 19, or have dependent children under 18 living in the household with you. 
To qualify for ACA you cannot be eligible for health insurance through an employer plan, if said plan meets minimum coverage guidelines set up for the government. 
To qualify for income tax credits to offset the cost of health insurance through the marketplace, you must make a minimum of about $13,000.  If you don't make that much (an in our rural area, lots here don't), the cheapest plan for you is about $500 or so with like a $10,000 deductible.
To put this in perspective, before ACA, I went to an agent and got health insurance for my son through Blue Cross Blue Shield for my son for less than $100 a month.
  As the ACA was written, it called for Medicaid expansion in every state for residents with incomes up to 133 percent of poverty.  But in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not be penalized for opting out of expansion, and Missouri is one of 19 states that has not yet taken steps to expand coverage.
 Because subsidies are only available in the exchange for people whose household incomes are at least 100 percent of poverty (since Medicaid was supposed to be available for those below that level), there are 147,000 people in Missouri who are in the coverage gap and have no realistic access to health insurance.  They aren’t eligible for Medicaid or for subsidies to offset the cost of private insurance.
And then we have these wonderful people like the woman I just talked to.  She qualifies for Medicaid, all she had to do was bring in a copy of her social security card so Medicaid could verify it.  I called her every day for 2 weeks, twice a day, each day, she was going to be bringing it in, she was on the way to bring it in.  She never did.  She owes this facility over $200,000 in medical bills and it's insane!  Emergency Rooms have to treat everyone, so we've got people coming in, rcving treatment and then walking out the door, and if you ask about paying, they literally laugh in your face. 
Sorry, it's been a rough day.

$10,000 deductible!  Good grief!

And, I can see why it's been a rough day.  Hope it gets better, @chae.

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

[Hoodat]

I know people with preexisting conditions. As for the federal government functions... are you willing to get rid of medicare and social security too?

HELL YES !!!!!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

HELL YES !!!!!

Ok, fair enough, but I've met plenty of people for whom they are conservatives but believe they are entitled to SS and Medicare because they have been "Paying for it their entire lives" and if that is true, then I'm saying that their are parts of the ACA that do work. The whole thing could be scrapped and implemented at state levels, of course. Politically that's pretty much unfeasible. I think.

[LMAO]

Ok, fair enough, but I've met plenty of people for whom they are conservatives but believe they are entitled to SS and Medicare because they have been "Paying for it their entire lives" and if that is true, then I'm saying that their are parts of the ACA that do work. The whole thing could be scrapped and implemented at state levels, of course. Politically that's pretty much unfeasible. I think.

Your post is the reason I believe the public will have to go through significant pain before this mess gets fixed

[Jazzhead]

People with pre-existing conditions can either pay more, take out a catastrophic plan* or go on medicaid if they can't afford the other two.  Being one of those people, I have had to think about that.

And, putting the feds in charge of medical care is wrong, anti-Constitutional and just asking for abuse.  Just because we have other questionable laws doesn't make this one any more right.

* I think the very reasonable and useful catastrophic plans may have been put out of business by 0care.

People with pre-existing conditions are like people who've had prior auto accidents.  The market for auto insurance provides options for such folks, in part because of government's edict that anyone who drives on a public road must have insurance.

In the context of auto insurance,  the government requires that everyone carry insurance to address harm to others caused by bad driving  (e.g. PIP), but lets drivers choose whether to insure risk to their own property, and in what amounts.

Turning to medical insurance,  government should likewise insist that everyone carry insurance that covers emergency room care and catastrophic costs  (that is, costs which the uninsured have historically forced onto others),  but otherwise let the market and individual choice flourish.   Everyone has a different tolerance for risk, and ability to self-fund such risk.   

ObamaCare's mistake isn't its requirement that everyone obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.   That's the key concept that must be retained, or else the alternative will be single payer financed through general tax revenues. 

No, the ACA's fatal error is in stifling competition in the insurance marketplace by insisting that everyone obtain comprehensive insurance.   Comprehensive insurance  - free check-ups,  free preventive care,  mandatory coverage for mental illness and substance abuse, no lifetime or annual limits - is expensive, with the result that the ACA marketplace policies can only compete on the basis of copays and deductibles (and increasingly narrow provider networks).    ObamaCare also forces the young and healthy to subsidize the old and unhealthy, by preventing insurers from setting rates on the basis of age in more than a ratio of 3 to 1.   No wonder so many young and healthy people eschew the exchanges,  and rationally pay the penalty tax.

Trump is right to say he's willing to fix the ACA rather than repeal it and leave folks with pre-existing conditions to the wolves.   And the remarkable thing is that the ACA really isn't that difficult to fix.    What needs to be done is conceptually simple -  inject more competition and choices into the individual insurance marketplace,  and incentivize employers to send their millions of insurable lives into that newly-competitive marketplace.     

   

[Rivergirl]

The man with the most brilliant mind believes same sex marriage is settled law but RoevWade is not.
Oy vey.

[Jazzhead]

The man with the most brilliant mind believes same sex marriage is settled law but RoevWade is not.
Oy vey.

Roe v. Wade has a greater claim to being settled law, in that there is no woman of child bearing age in this country who hasn't had the choice right for her entire adult life.   If that right is to be taken away, it should by done by means of the peoples' elected representatives, not the edict of an unelected court.   

That being said,  civil marriage equality is far better grounded in the Constitution than Roe v. Wade.   Civil marriage equality follows by direct application of the equal protection clause;  the choice right derives from the natural rights of privacy and self-determination which are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.   Still, the choice right has existed for over forty years.   To the extent you resent the SCOTUS for finding a new liberty,  just think of the resentment that would be caused by an unelected court taking a long-established liberty away.   

[txradioguy]

What people don't realize is that this whole thing about same sex "marriage" has never been about property agreements...hospital visitations or taxes...it's about tearing apart the fundamental underpinnings of our society and principals this country was founded on.

Morals mean nothing to the people behind all of this.  Never has never will.

[Jazzhead]

What people don't realize is that this whole thing about same sex "marriage" has never been about property agreements...hospital visitations or taxes...it's about tearing apart the fundamental underpinnings of our society and principals this country was founded on.

Morals mean nothing to the people behind all of this.  Never has never will.

I strongly disagree.  This is about the equal protection of the law.  The civil law grants valuable rights and benefits to married couples.   Those rights and benefits cannot be arbitrarily denied to gay couples who are willing to enter into a civil marriage commitment.

As for morals, civil marriage -whether for gays or straights - is intended to promote sexual monogamy.  IMO, that's a good thing - and I know well several gay married couples that are perfectly conservative homebodies.   The moral rupture that's infected the culture is sexual promiscuity - and such promiscuity has far greater social consequences when practiced by straights.   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What people don't realize is that this whole thing about same sex "marriage" has never been about property agreements...hospital visitations or taxes...it's about tearing apart the fundamental underpinnings of our society and principals this country was founded on.

Morals mean nothing to the people behind all of this.  Never has never will.

I disagree with both sides about this ridiculous controversy and I hate that we had to waste time on it.

[Cripplecreek]

What people don't realize is that this whole thing about same sex "marriage" has never been about property agreements...hospital visitations or taxes...it's about tearing apart the fundamental underpinnings of our society and principals this country was founded on.

Morals mean nothing to the people behind all of this.  Never has never will.

I have a militant lesbian cousin who deliberately seeks out Christian institutions to apply for jobs in hopes that they will turn her down.

Before there was gay marriage my cousin and her girlfriend applied for a loan as a married couple. The bank would give them a joint loan but not as a married couple. They walked away from the loan and then tried to stir outrage in the Minneapolis gay community by claiming the bank refused to give them a loan.

If I recall correctly the gay couple who tried to get a marriage license from Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis deliberately sought Davis out. I believe they even crossed state lines to do it.

[txradioguy]

I strongly disagree.  This is about the equal protection of the law.  The civil law grants valuable rights and benefits to married couples.   Those rights and benefits cannot be arbitrarily denied to gay couples who are willing to enter into a civil marriage commitment.

As for morals, civil marriage -whether for gays or straights - is intended to promote sexual monogamy.  IMO, that's a good thing - and I know well several gay married couples that are perfectly conservative homebodies.   The moral rupture that's infected the culture is sexual promiscuity - and such promiscuity has far greater social consequences when practiced by straights.

What civil right do you and I have that a gay person doesn't?

WhT are they being Constitutionally denied?

The equal protection clause has been severely abused and was never intended as a catch-all for every bit of Liberal social engineering they want to foist on us.

[Jazzhead]

What civil right do you and I have that a gay person doesn't?

WhT are they being Constitutionally denied?

The equal protection clause has been severely abused and was never intended as a catch-all for every bit of Liberal social engineering they want to foist on us.

The equal protection clause is one of the most important protections we have against arbitrary government. 

The states and the federal government attach valuable protections and benefits to the institution of civil marriage.   If such valuable protections and benefits didn't exist, there would be no equal protection issue.  But since they do, they can't be arbitrarily denied to gay couples.   

(And let's not forget - a gay couple's civil marriage doesn't affect my marriage, or yours, in the slightest.)

[Sanguine]

The equal protection clause is one of the most important protections we have against arbitrary government. 

The states and the federal government attach valuable protections and benefits to the institution of civil marriage.   If such valuable protections and benefits didn't exist, there would be no equal protection issue.  But since they do, they can't be arbitrarily denied to gay couples.   

(And let's not forget - a gay couple's civil marriage doesn't affect my marriage, or yours, in the slightest.)

Sure it does - it further degrades the institution of marriage and provides a poorer environment for the raising and nurturing of future generations.  There are all sorts of societal benefits that come from stable two-parent families.  It (degradation and/or redefinition of marriage) creates an environment where dependence on the state rather than family makes more sense. 

[txradioguy]

The equal protection clause is one of the most important protections we have against arbitrary government. 

The states and the federal government attach valuable protections and benefits to the institution of civil marriage.   If such valuable protections and benefits didn't exist, there would be no equal protection issue.  But since they do, they can't be arbitrarily denied to gay couples.   

(And let's not forget - a gay couple's civil marriage doesn't affect my marriage, or yours, in the slightest.)

The equal protection clause is part of a trio of post Civil War Amendments that we're designed to give newly freed slaves protection from continued discrimination by a defeated South.

It was NOT put there to allow gays to “marry“ or give everyone Healthcare. Two things the Liberals have used that clause to ram through.

It's the same clause Liberals are using to let people go into locker rooms and  public restrooms their natural born genetics should prevent them from going into.

And it's an abuse and misuse in the worst way.

So again what right is being denied to gay people in America.

Hint: Marriage is NOT a right.

[Hoodat]

I strongly disagree.  This is about the equal protection of the law.  The civil law grants valuable rights and benefits to married couples.

Nope.  Civil law places restrictions on married persons that are not placed upon unmarried ones.

As for equal protection, it already existed.  Every man had the same pool of people to choose from.  Same with women.  This rule was applied equally.  Sexual preference has nothing to do with it.

Bottom line, this is a State issue solely because the federal legislature has abstained from issuing any federal definition on marriage.  (See Amendment X, Constitution of the United States of America).  So it is up to the people of each state through their legislatures and local governments to establish their own marriage definitions.

[Jazzhead]

The equal protection clause is part of a trio of post Civil War Amendments that we're designed to give newly freed slaves protection from continued discrimination by a defeated South.

It was NOT put there to allow gays to “marry“ or give everyone Healthcare. Two things the Liberals have used that clause to ram through.

It's the same clause Liberals are using to let people go into locker rooms and  public restrooms their natural born genetics should prevent them from going into.

And it's an abuse and misuse in the worst way.

So again what right is being denied to gay people in America.

Hint: Marriage is NOT a right.

I didn't say civil marriage is a right.   But as I said above:

The states and the federal government attach valuable protections and benefits to the institution of civil marriage.   If such valuable protections and benefits didn't exist, there would be no equal protection issue.  But since they do, they can't be arbitrarily denied to gay couples.

It's those valuable protections and benefits which are subject to equal protection.   

I couldn't be more pleased that friends, relatives and colleagues of mine now have the right to marry just as I do.  And my marriage - and yours - isn't affected in the slightest.       

[goatprairie]

People with pre-existing conditions can either pay more, take out a catastrophic plan* or go on medicaid if they can't afford the other two.  Being one of those people, I have had to think about that.

And, putting the feds in charge of medical care is wrong, anti-Constitutional and just asking for abuse.  Just because we have other questionable laws doesn't make this one any more right.

* I think the very reasonable and useful catastrophic plans may have been put out of business by 0care.

Comes down to what is the proper role of government. Naturally, libs believe the fed. gov. should step in at every opportunity to "solve" problems like healthcare, etc.
It's not that the fed. or state govs. don't have their places, it's just that every free market opportunity should be exhausted before the feds step in. And only with limited power.
Of course, the  feds even when starting out with limited power end up amassing huge power.  Which is what will happen with healthcare....unless they're stopped in their tracks.
Obamacare should be COMPLETELY!!! destroyed and  the free market employed/unleashed.
If, after that,  we find out healthcare is too expensive for average Americans, then we can think about gov. "help."

[Norm Lenhart]

Comes down to what is the proper role of government. Naturally, libs believe the fed. gov. should step in at every opportunity to "solve" problems like healthcare, etc.
It's not that the fed. or state govs. don't have their places, it's just that every free market opportunity should be exhausted before the feds step in. And only with limited power.
Of course, the  feds even when starting out with limited power end up amassing huge power.  Which is what will happen with healthcare....unless they're stopped in their tracks.
Obamacare should be COMPLETELY!!! destroyed and  the free market employed/unleashed.
If, after that,  we find out healthcare is too expensive for average Americans, then we can think about gov. "help."

What it comes down to for these people is...

 "I have a brother/sister/cousin/mother/father/aunt/uncle/friend who is gay and I feel bad for them so I will abandon thousands of years of stable societal institutions to feel better about myself and I'll force you to abandon it too whether you agree or not. Screw everyone, screw the kids whose lives are impacted and often destroyed by the gaying of the planet. I want to feel good about myself."

 It's no more than that.