Posted by Dave_AR (other posts) on February 12, 2014 at 05:37:04 Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Freedom isn't free posted by Bill on February 11, 2014 at 21:50:37:
: Unfortunately, the government passes laws with sharp cutoffs instead of tapering them off. This encourages some people to stay below a cutoff point where they would lose certain benefits. This situation for an individual is not necessarily life long. One may be poor when young, get a good education, get a good job, have all the benefits, spend every penny of it, and retire a pauper. Then the government will be looking after you again:
I understand this. But I believe it's still unfair. In my country you are entitled to access public health and a university career no matter if you are poor or rich, local or foreign. The State pays (through our taxes) for health and education for any person in the country.
I dont remember where i read the case of an American living with HIV and having the treatment subsidized by the government. This benefit -he said- is to be kept as long as he can proof that he meets certain requirements. So, he had to refuse better job offers and better salaries, because if he "upgrades" his life quality, he would have to pay for the whole price of the HIV treatment.
That does not happen here. Any person can access any medical treatment for free, no matter how much money you earn on an annual basis.
: There had never been a federal law on marriage until the law was passed in the 1990s saying the federal government would not recognize same sex marriages. Marriage in the U.S. has always been granted, regulated, and dissolved by the individual states. Last June the U.S. Supreme Court threw that 1990s law out, so the federal government now recognizes marriages, but a same sex couple must have gotten the marriage from a U.S. state or foreign country that will grant such.:
Two things to mention here:
1- You're telling me the only time the federal government passed a federal law was just to make clear that they would not recognize same sex marriages? It's the first time I hear a government passes a bill in a negative way.
2- You're saying this : " the federal government now recognizes marriages, but a same sex couple must have gotten the marriage from a U.S. state or foreign country that will grant such".
Isnt that discrimination? Treating a straight marriage in a different way that a same sex marriage is treated?