Gays get "special treatment" because we're discriminated against (in law). You can get married, I can't.
Also, read the article carefully. Gays don't, in the end, get more than straight people. Gays, in the end, get the same amount as straight people, after the taxes are taken into account.
Ugh I still have more to talk about your stupid-ass comment. You said 70% of men with STDs are LGBT. That is such bullshit. You got that from some church's website. 2/3rds of all Americans have an STD of some form, and I really really doubt 69.9% of 2/3rds of all Americans are LGBT. I'm one of those lucky 1/3rd that doesn't have an STD.
Another thing to your stupid-ass pussy comment. It doesn't cost the company more or less to pay healthcare for gay people. Everyone costs the same, and the risk is distributed evenly throughout a large pool of employees. It would technically cost the health care company more.
I've got even more to your shit-for-brains comment (how does someone as stupid as you not only read Slashdot, but figure out how to post comments?). Even if, statistically speaking, the huge group of people which checks "gay" on the sheet might be.0001% more expensive (and no, not 1800% more expensive dumbass), this is nowhere near anything of what the true cost of healthcare is. 95% of all healthcare money is spent in the last few years of life. Being gay, if it DID actually cost anything (and I figure it costs less, given the less-likely chance of having extra family members to pay for), is a drop in the bucket.
1. How much do you think the clap costs? Gonorrhea? Pretty much nothing. Only HIV costs a lot.
2. Your statistics are stupid and irrelevant. I am gay and have never any STDs, except crabs once which isn't really a disease, more like an STI. I am not 18 times more likely than a straight person to get them, because of many factors other than gayness. Over HALF of my friends (straight) have STDs of some form.
3. Why not charge black people more because they are more likely to be poor and eat worse and live worse and not have full families, etc. etc.?
4. So your stupid-ass comment is basically saying that gay people should be taxed more, in order to pay for a different group of people (people with STDs). Although 66% of the population has some form of an STD, you think gay people should pay more for them than straight people should.
I work for a company that does this (T-Mobile). You have to get a document notarized, and also have a domestic partner, both of which are not as simple as lying. Having a domestic partner costs a lot of money, from the health insurance stand point. For me, it costs approximately $200/month to have a domestic partner, and you get paid approximately $40/month in extra money to pay for the taxes.
They don't "loose" any money except any projected difference in income between contract end and termination data, minus the cancellation fee.
Did you hear yourself type that? You just said they don't "loose" any money, except the money they will lose.
Also, you are incorrect that they won't lose any money due other than what you stated; when a carrier creates a contract with a customer, they usually agree to pay for their phone on the condition that the customer will pay them back over time. So if they just let the customer stop paying at any point, then they've basically defaulted on a loan. It's just wrapped up a little more complex than you realize.
They didn't bother to name "who" opposed/sabotaged the tax break, even though the only entity which could oppose it, according to the gist of the article, would be an outside entity, because only an outside entity would imply an unfair advantage towards UK gaming companies. But why would the outside entity not be named, if it is a UK article about UK gaming companies? How could an external company actually persuade UK politicians that it would be an unfair advantage to UK citizens that it would be unfair for a non-UK gaming company to have tax breaks?
I'm not saying ANYTHING on whether or not the tax break would be good or not; I'm saying it doesn't make sense that an external entity exerted their "power" to persuade UK politicians that it would be bad for the UK gaming industry if they were given tax breaks. I'm saying that it only makes sense if it were a UK gaming lobby which persuaded them.
We still use Arabic numerals for mathematics. But now the Islam world is well behind in technology and science, including human science.
WE DO NOT USE ARABIC NUMERALS.
We use Hindu numerals. The only thing the Arabs did was start using them, and tell the Europeans about them. The Europeans then called them Arabic numerals.
Oh... sorry, actually the Persian mathematicians were the ones who spread their use, but the Europeans called them Arabic.
Well, I thought I might answer your question instead of getting off in a tangent like a lot of people.
I work on decompiling software. It's really fun. One day I'll start a blog about it to chronicle the thousands and thousands of man hours I've spent on this really cool and uncharted territory.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, read the article carefully. Gays don't, in the end, get more than straight people. Gays, in the end, get the same amount as straight people, after the taxes are taken into account.
Ugh I still have more to talk about your stupid-ass comment. You said 70% of men with STDs are LGBT. That is such bullshit. You got that from some church's website. 2/3rds of all Americans have an STD of some form, and I really really doubt 69.9% of 2/3rds of all Americans are LGBT. I'm one of those lucky 1/3rd that doesn't have an STD.
I've got even more to your shit-for-brains comment (how does someone as stupid as you not only read Slashdot, but figure out how to post comments?). Even if, statistically speaking, the huge group of people which checks "gay" on the sheet might be .0001% more expensive (and no, not 1800% more expensive dumbass), this is nowhere near anything of what the true cost of healthcare is. 95% of all healthcare money is spent in the last few years of life. Being gay, if it DID actually cost anything (and I figure it costs less, given the less-likely chance of having extra family members to pay for), is a drop in the bucket.
1. How much do you think the clap costs? Gonorrhea? Pretty much nothing. Only HIV costs a lot.
2. Your statistics are stupid and irrelevant. I am gay and have never any STDs, except crabs once which isn't really a disease, more like an STI. I am not 18 times more likely than a straight person to get them, because of many factors other than gayness. Over HALF of my friends (straight) have STDs of some form.
3. Why not charge black people more because they are more likely to be poor and eat worse and live worse and not have full families, etc. etc.?
4. So your stupid-ass comment is basically saying that gay people should be taxed more, in order to pay for a different group of people (people with STDs). Although 66% of the population has some form of an STD, you think gay people should pay more for them than straight people should.
I work for a company that does this (T-Mobile). You have to get a document notarized, and also have a domestic partner, both of which are not as simple as lying. Having a domestic partner costs a lot of money, from the health insurance stand point. For me, it costs approximately $200/month to have a domestic partner, and you get paid approximately $40/month in extra money to pay for the taxes.
T-Mobile has done this for years. Not sure why this is such big news.
They don't "loose" any money except any projected difference in income between contract end and termination data, minus the cancellation fee.
Did you hear yourself type that? You just said they don't "loose" any money, except the money they will lose. Also, you are incorrect that they won't lose any money due other than what you stated; when a carrier creates a contract with a customer, they usually agree to pay for their phone on the condition that the customer will pay them back over time. So if they just let the customer stop paying at any point, then they've basically defaulted on a loan. It's just wrapped up a little more complex than you realize.
The story doesn't make any sense, frankly.
They didn't bother to name "who" opposed/sabotaged the tax break, even though the only entity which could oppose it, according to the gist of the article, would be an outside entity, because only an outside entity would imply an unfair advantage towards UK gaming companies. But why would the outside entity not be named, if it is a UK article about UK gaming companies? How could an external company actually persuade UK politicians that it would be an unfair advantage to UK citizens that it would be unfair for a non-UK gaming company to have tax breaks?
I'm not saying ANYTHING on whether or not the tax break would be good or not; I'm saying it doesn't make sense that an external entity exerted their "power" to persuade UK politicians that it would be bad for the UK gaming industry if they were given tax breaks. I'm saying that it only makes sense if it were a UK gaming lobby which persuaded them.
We still use Arabic numerals for mathematics. But now the Islam world is well behind in technology and science, including human science.
WE DO NOT USE ARABIC NUMERALS.
We use Hindu numerals. The only thing the Arabs did was start using them, and tell the Europeans about them. The Europeans then called them Arabic numerals.
Oh... sorry, actually the Persian mathematicians were the ones who spread their use, but the Europeans called them Arabic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals
Well, I thought I might answer your question instead of getting off in a tangent like a lot of people. I work on decompiling software. It's really fun. One day I'll start a blog about it to chronicle the thousands and thousands of man hours I've spent on this really cool and uncharted territory.