California moves to provide surrogates to gay male couples in the name of 'fertility equality'

You do understand that gay as a category also includes lesbians, right?

 

You do understand that insurances companies probably already offer up many service that they pay for (and thus you by extension by paying their premiums) that you might well disagree with and not want to pay for, right? Have you ever bothered to check and see everything that your insurance company pays for? What would you do if you found out that your insurance company has already included surrogacy for many years long before this bill came up?

 

And single men who want children but cant find the right woman. Are they to be covered as well, or will they have to pretend to be gay first?

 

You know, I would think that you are goal shifting if I even understood why you came in so hot and what exactly is your issue. You read the article and since it obviously made you so angry you probably have read the legislation by now. But you didn't read that I was asking a question rather than make a statement.

Your entire participation in this thread strikes me as odd. Somehow opposing it but not clear on why.

 

Yes, but don't pretend that lesbians are the same as gay dudes.

 

That's up to me and the insurance company. We have choices and everyone is happy. Why do I need government to force insurance companies to insure procedures that offend their customers. That could just as easily be any surrogacy, as it is expensive and completely elective.

 

For better or for worse (worse, IMO,) insurance is the system we are stuck with. Since the entire point of insurance companies is to not pay claims, the government has had to step in to ensure that they do what they claim they do.

Some time back, it got so ridiculous that having had a hangnail as a kid was a pre-existing condition for all other conditions. It just got silly stupid how claims were being rejected.

If we must have a system where the doctor charges $800, but if you have insurance, it's only $300, and insurance pays $250; then we must stay on top of it.

Congratulations for finding an insurance company that let's you cafeteria the types of coverage you have. I've had plan choices, but have never had the option to opt out of appendectomy coverage, as an example.

 

My experience is that people tend to throw up articles on bills or laws, making claims of the bill or law, and never bother to post, or even read for that matter, what the bill or law actually says. As the one making the claim, they are the ones who need to show that the bill or law actually says what it says. I am happy to withhold judgement until such is provided. More often than not, they are mistaken about what the bill/law says, or they are providing their own interperation of the wording that is not accurate to the bill/law, especially if they are taking specific parts out of context with the rest of the bill/law. Without them providing those parts of the bill/law that they are claiming says what they claim, I have no real basis to agree or disagree. I can disagree with a law and still agree that it says what is claimed. I can even disagree with the law itself while disagreeing with someone claiming it says other than what it does. We have a great example right on this very forum of someone making a claim about a law that is not supported anywhere in that law at all.

 

Lesbians are gay ladies. Why they should get their own label and the males do not is beyond me.

 

And yet I don't see that kind of uproar over cosmetic surgery. Interesting.

 

I don't want to pay for someone's nose job or fake boobs either. Unless it's to repair after an injury, I shouldn't have to.

 

And what are you doing to fight that? Because most insurances cover that as standard.

 

D

Do most insurance plans really cover an elective boob job? I can understand a boob job after a cancer mastectomy and have no problem with it.

 

Many do, but admittedly most do not (had to look that up and my wording should have been many not most in the previous post). However, if you are getting insurance via an employer, then they are the ones arranging what is and isn't covered with the insurance company. They can choose to go with the plan that covers surrogacy (shifting back to the topic). Since they are the one who are providing that insurance, even if you do have to pay a premium, do you still feel that you have a say in what they choose for the company overall? Are you going to quit because of what they choose and thus you have to pay for?

 

Maybe so, but I'm operating within the current understanding of the English language.

 

Lol! They do not!

There are a very few insurance plans that cover elective cosmetic surgery.

 

So you never really had an objection.

I think it was the topic that just made you angry, since clearly you don't go around to every thread about a law that has an article about the law in it. If you did, you wouldn't have time for much else. But THIS particular story pissed you off.

Well if you have some coherent objections, I'm willing to listen, but so far you've just wanted me to highlight various points in the law mentioned in the article. I did that for you once already (you're welcome!). So think real hard about the source of your anger and then you can get back to me on specifics.

 

That is within the current understanding. It's similar to how we can use the label "man" to both mean males only as well as males and females collectively, while women (transgender issues aside) means females only. So gay is both collective and only males, and sometimes the context, in both cases, is not always clear

 

So since it's not always clear, you were wrong for objecting to my use of the word "lesbians."

 

I haven't had an objection yet, because it's not been proven that the law actually states what the article/OP claims. That is what I have been after all this time. It is the OPs responsibility to provide the proof of their assertion, even if it is a link to the bill and stating that sections A, E and F are the parts that they are referring to.

Yes this particular story is of interest to me. It in an area of life that affect many of my friends and family.

Hell I can love the idea of what the claim is that the bill/law does, but I am still going to want the OP, or anyone else who comes in with a claim on it, to prove the law says what they claim. And I have yet to see you cite any part of the law. Quote the article, yes, but it didn't cite the law. It just claimed the bill says such and such. If you did post section and subsection and all somewhere give me a post number and I'll go back. I am not ashamed to admit that I miss posts at times, especially if a large number are made between the times I get on.

 

So no real objection, just a mood.

Thanks!

 

I didn't. I objected to the assumption that if lesbians were not specific mentioned separately they weren't included. If something is said to be for "the gays", then that can include lesbians, without needing the word lesbian also included. Not that the bill said anything that would imply such an exclusion, which also made the idea of questioning where they included odd, hence the initial request to show where that impression came from.

 

That's up to me. I have options and that's all I ask for.

 

Presumably, under the law, lesbians would be entitled to taxpayer money to pay for their trip to a sperm bank.

 

It was snark and you know it.