[3nKrYp7]

Originally Posted by Draven

First off, yes I can use medical care outside the VAMC, however under the idea of a UNIVERSAL healthcare system the same standards of treatment for those who can pay for it and those who can't must be the same. Which means further government regulation of the healthcare system. So it doesn't matter if I can use a private option now, under government sponsored healthcare I won't have that option because it will be univseral heathcare guidelines...

Universal healthcare does not mean the those who pay for private care must be treated the same as those who use public options. Universal healthcare means everyone has access to a healthcare plan (hence the 'universal healthcare' part of it). You say 'further government regulation of the healthcare system' as if the government don't entirely regulate the healthcare system now, they do. 'Univseral healthcare guidelines' are already in place, they have to be otherwise you'd have completely unsafe and outdated operations being performed and dangerous drugs being prescribed.

Also, the will not be interfering in the private sector and forcing them to conform to new regulations. That would be very counter-productive given one of the aims of a universal health care plan is to promote competition between public and private sectors.

What you seem to be opposing is a completely nationalised health care system (where all hospitals and services are public), not a universal health care plan (everyone is covered under a public plan but may make use of private plans and services). I don't think that's what the Obama administration are trying to push forward.

So, to sum up,

• You do not need to use the public plan
• You can keep everything the way it is now, they will not interfere in your current plan
• The Government will not be regulating your treatment any more than they are now (as they already entirely regulate it).

Secondly, many of the things you mentioned already exist for gay couples. Thats specifically why I say that the government should stay out of the marrage issue.

A gay couple can't do any of those things under federal law. That's the whole point. Depending on the state they may receive state recognition and benefits but not federal ones.

The 1A clearly states "Congress shall make no laws governing religion or the free exercise there of." If marrage is recognised as a religious instutution, whether organized or unorganized, then the government has no say over who can/cannot marry and accept any marrage at face value.

For the sake of clarity lets refer to 'legal marriage' as a civil union. A civil union [i.e. legal marriage] has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Lets remove the religion from it, imagine there were no religions in the US. Under current law any straight couple who entered into a civil union would receive about 1,100 benefits from the federal government, if I recall correctly. However, if a gay couple entered into a civil union it would not be recognised by the federal government and they would not receive those benefits. That's it, there is nothing more to it. No religion involved. So, do you feel that gay couples who enter into a civil union should have that civil union recognised by the feds when straight couples do?

Remember: no religious involvement in these civil unions.