Should homosexuals pay more insurance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GloriaPatri4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GloriaPatri4

Guest
**Smokers and obese people have to pay higher insurance premiums but its discrimination when we talk about homosexuals having to pay higer insurance premiums. **

Allstate even financially supports Gay advocacy groups. lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05062403.html)
** Can you imagine a Insurance company shelling out money to advocate smoking or overeating?**

**
Homosexuals should pay more insurance
Nathan Tabor
January 19, 2005

With the big flap over so-called “gay marriage” temporarily on the back burner — now that their fearless but feckless leader John Kerry has gone down in flames, and with the first government-sanctioned same-sex unions already ending nastily in divorce courts and bitter custody battles — this just might be an opportune moment to discuss some rarely mentioned health problems inherent within the allegedly avant garde homosexual lifestyle.

Some would say it is a known fact that most homosexuals, and especially gay men, are promiscuous. Their rhetoric is carefully crafted to give the impression they are in “committed, caring relationships” while research suggests that the vast majority of gays are neither celibate nor monogamous. (All heterosexuals are not celibate or monogamous either.)

Some may say, so what? Well, the corollary to this homosexual health hypothesis is another proven fact: most sexually active homosexuals simply don’t live a very long time. The heartier they party, it seems, the shorter the time that party lasts.

According to a article entitled “The Longevity of Homosexuals” in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying, the median age of death from AIDS for homosexual men is 37, and the median age of death from other causes is 42. This does not compare favorably to the ever-increasing average lifespan of the rest of the heterosexual American population.

An analysis conducted at the end of 1997 by the Centers for Disease Control revealed that fully 60 percent of all AIDS cases in the United States are found among homosexual men. This is an amazingly high figure, especially when we consider that homosexuals — contrary to Kinsey’s flawed study and fabricated “one-in-ten” myth — constitute only about 1 to 2 percent of our total population.

The conclusion is simple. Homosexual activists say they want equal rights and treatment. Fine. Let’s use their own arguments against them here. Let’s start by having them pay their fair share of the healthcare costs that accompany their lifestyle.
CONTINUE READING
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/tabor/050119
**
 
**

From the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons

Anal Condyloma
Anal condyloma is the most common anorectal condition seen in HIV+ patients. The apparent infestation of Human papilloma virus (HPV) in the practicing homosexual population is likely to be a confounding factor in a variety of pathologic conditions in this population, including the increasing cases of anal cancer. As mentioned, subtypes 16 and 18 have been associated with malignant transformation. The E6 and E7 genes of these subtypes have been shown to be incorporated into the host genome and bind to the p53 and Rb protein, respectively. Loss of these tumor-suppressor genes is thought to be a contributing factor in malignant transformation. Moreover, HIV is thought to be a cofactor in E6 and E7 expression.

fascrs.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=135

**

medscape.com/medline/abstract/6894558?prt=true
 
American Academy of Family Physicians

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20010701/77.html

The long-term consequences of HPV infection are of major concern. Infection with HPV has been associated with an increased risk of cervical and anal cancers.7 Receptive homosexuals have 50 times the rate of anal cancers.8 Some experts have suggested that these high-risk patients should have regular Papanicolaou smear screening of the anal canal
 
Some time ago I was applying for health insurance. I was flat out turned down by BC/BS and ended up paying a higher premium to the company that insured me because my weight was “excessive” for my height. I was a body-builder and I bet was in better physical condition than any of the bean-counters that thought I was a higher risk simply because of weight. If heavier people can be charged more even when they are at no higher risk, than homosexual people who generally are a higher risk can pay more too.
 
I had to vote no. I have never been sexually active but experience same sex attraction. When I first satrted seeing my current doctor last June he asked whether I was heterosexual or homosexual. I just said I was heterosexual. Maybe that was a lie but I do not need the prejudgements in healthcare. Those like me who start getting lumped into the same class as active homosexuals will end up paying higher premiums and that would be unjust.
 
Their lifestyles reduce their expected lifespan, so yes.
 
T.A.Stobie:
Their lifestyles reduce their expected lifespan, so yes.
Click to expand...
When they ask on the insurance form, is it ok for me to say I am heterosexual even though I have same sex attraction? I am not in a life style that puts me at risk but what is the morality in lying? I am not paying more so I guess I’ll just keep lying. They can’t tell what is in my thoughts after all.
 
Ok, it follows then that it would be just as appropriate to ask unmarried heterosexuals if they are sexually active, how frequently and with how many different partners.

From a purely business stand point this is a legitimate concern. But, you can’t set the behavior of homosexuals apart from that shared by heterosexuals and vilify only homosexuals by making them pay more for presupposed lifestyle practices.
 
40.png
coyote:
Ok, it follows then that it would be just as appropriate to ask unmarried heterosexuals if they are sexually active, how frequently and with how many different partners.

From a purely business stand point this is a legitimate concern. But, you can’t set the behavior of homosexuals apart from that shared by heterosexuals and vilify only homosexuals by making them pay more for presupposed lifestyle practices.
Click to expand...
Right, those sexuality active outside of a covenant marriage should pay more for life and health insurance.
 
I voted “only if the are sexually active”. It’s the sexual activity that creates the risk, not the same sex attraction.

Sure, a lot of people would lie…but I don’t think it would be fair to punish chaste homosexuals.
 
Does this mean then that health care workers should pay higher premiums because of their daily exposure to various and sundry diseases ???
Kathy
 
40.png
Katie1723:
Does this mean then that health care workers should pay higher premiums because of their daily exposure to various and sundry diseases ???
Kathy
Click to expand...
They usually do, yes. It is in someways lessened, as they have more ‘on the job’ health care as well.

The same is true for teachers.
 
I voted NO because heterosexuals, whether sexually active or not, indulge in as many or more unhealty activities as homosexuals. A few of these activities were mentioned at the introduction to this thread. Smoking, obesity, men who won’t go to a doctor until it’s too late, etc. Also, homosexuals are not giving birth to children (for the most part) and childbirth and the care of premature babies is very expensive.

AIDS is not a homosexual disease, anymore. It’s an equal opportunity disease. On top of that, Lesbians have the lowest incidence of AIDS. They’re also homosexual.
 
Given the current situation, it would be almost imposssible to practically administer higher rates for those who are at higher risk because of their unhealthy lifestyle (homosexual activity, not just inclination). I don’t see how it would be possible for an insurance company to know who was engaging in such behaviors without relying on self-reporting (punishing those who are honest), or seriously sacrificing privacy. Therefore, while I generally favor people who are at higher risk because of their choices (smoking, overeating, never excersizing, etc.) paying commensurately, here I don’t think it would currently work.

On the other hand, if same-sex marriage or civil unions become common (I hope not), than it would be easy to regulate. Unfortunately, in order for the former to occur, the political climate would make the latter impossible. After all, requiring individuals to pay more because of their risky homosexual behavior must be “discrimination”.
 
Smokers and obese people are higher health risks. It’s merely an issue of business.
 
If all rates were based on risk then we would have a fairer system. Where my DH works our insurance is based on married (family), non-married(single only) and self rates(only worker is insured).

The married rate includes all fertility and non fertility services and allows no one to opt out. We never have and never would use some services. Since we are firmly prolife some of the services we would not opt for are: many of the transplant operations and treatments and the fertility services.

Non-married (living with SSP) are eligable for fertility services.

Single (self only) is what it says. They are eligable for all services including maternity care

Rates should be based on the services you are willing to use and pay for. Rates should take into consideration the life choices that we each make. They do this in life insurance, auto insurance etc. Yet we have no choice to have better coverage for the items we choose and eliminate those we do not choose.

So I feel that any population that chooses to do things that are likely to create medical problems in the future should have their rates based on their choices.

For those that can not provide the coverage there should also be coverage available paid for by society. But. society should not pay for their choices. We all have free will to do or not to do what can harm us.
 
40.png
LeahInancsi:
I voted NO because heterosexuals, whether sexually active or not, indulge in as many or more unhealty activities as homosexuals. A few of these activities were mentioned at the introduction to this thread. Smoking, obesity, men who won’t go to a doctor until it’s too late, etc.
Click to expand...
And people that do these risky things do pay more for insurance. Why should the risky activity of homosexual sex be treated differently?

**
AIDS is not a homosexual disease, anymore.
Click to expand...
It’s an equal opportunity disease. On top of that, Lesbians have the lowest incidence of AIDS. They’re also homosexual.**
And homosexual men have the highest incidence, by far. So it isn’t “equal”.
 
I as a celibate male should pay the least for insurance, regardless of sexual orientation.😃
 
The problem I see is that the mere categorization of “homosexual” could lead to a rush to judgement.

If there is concern among insurance companies,based on actuarial findings, then questions on the medical and activity questionnaire should explore those concerns for all applicants. When I was first insured, I was rated because I flew for a living.

If the questionnaire reveals risks, there should be a rating,and no need to even ask about sexual orientation.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
If yes, the following must also be considered:
  • Increased insurance for serial monogomists (those married more than once)
  • Increased insurance for the unmarried and sexually active heterosexual
  • Decreased insurance for consecrated celibates
  • Increased insurance for those who don’t go to Church every week (general psychological well-being is lower)
  • Increased insurance rates for married “swingers”
  • Increased insurance rates for adulterers
  • Decreased insurance rates for Jehovah’s Witnesses
  • Increased insurance rates for senior executives and the poorest of the poor, as these two groups tend to have the highest suicide attempts.
  • Increased insurance rates for blacks, as they contract VD more than any other racial group, followed by Native Americans.
If we’re going to go strictly by the numbers, it’s the poorest and least educated in any group that’s truly at the highest risk - should we increase their rates as well? Once you see the numbers, it’s far more convincing to raise rates there than amongst homosexuals.

Some things you just shouldn’t do, for whatever reason.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top