<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Steele Shows Creativity with Gay-Marriage-Costs-Small-Business Argument</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/05/18/steele-shows-creativity-with-gay-marriage-costs-small-business-argument/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/05/18/steele-shows-creativity-with-gay-marriage-costs-small-business-argument/</link>
	<description>News and Opinion on Politics and Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:42:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Trish</title>
		<link>http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/05/18/steele-shows-creativity-with-gay-marriage-costs-small-business-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-697262</link>
		<dc:creator>Trish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 19:04:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/05/18/steele-shows-creativity-with-gay-marriage-costs-small-business-argument/#comment-697262</guid>
		<description>You pay a portion of the extra coverage but your employer pays also, so Steele has a point. But if he parts his hair right, no one will notice because his point is actually that marriage costs employers. They don&#039;t just pay extra for gay spouses but for all spouses. So does Steele want to do away with marriage altogether? That&#039;s the only logical conclusion to his argument.

On the other hand, why do employers have to pay for health insurance anyway? Why is health insurance related to employment in this country? Maybe what Steele is really arguing for is single-payer health care provided by the government. Now there&#039;s a concept I bet Republicans can get behind.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You pay a portion of the extra coverage but your employer pays also, so Steele has a point. But if he parts his hair right, no one will notice because his point is actually that marriage costs employers. They don&#8217;t just pay extra for gay spouses but for all spouses. So does Steele want to do away with marriage altogether? That&#8217;s the only logical conclusion to his argument.</p>
<p>On the other hand, why do employers have to pay for health insurance anyway? Why is health insurance related to employment in this country? Maybe what Steele is really arguing for is single-payer health care provided by the government. Now there&#8217;s a concept I bet Republicans can get behind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
