Comments about ‘Stop government control’

I have moral objections to tax breaks for private jet owners, millions in hush-money payments to disgruntled highway contractors while we underfund our schools, subsidies to oil companies, preemptive wars and a military budget that is 47% of the world's total military spending.

Yet I still pay my taxes and obey the law.

Mr. Hansgen's blustering is nothing more than hollow, shallow, conservative hypocrisy.

"she should not have the right to demand I should pay for it. That definitely should be her responsibility."

Well, lets take that mentality to other insurance areas and others.

If "you" decide to have 6 kids, "she" will help finance the delivery through her insurance.
Family health care insurance typically costs the same if you have 2 kids or 6. "She" may be subsidizing your health insurance"
"She" will be forced to help school your children through taxes.
"She" will be forced to pay higher taxes on the same income because "you" have more deductions.

So tell me, How is the govt control I list different from the govt control that you complain about?

This letter makes no sense. Requiring people to have health insurance, so they won't end up at the emergency room door for non-emergency care, is originally a conservative idea, based on the concept of "personal responsibility". The right wing Heritage Foundation was a big proponent of the idea, as was Mitt and Newt. All it takes is Obama using a conservative idea, to turn it into a "socialist government takeover" of the healthcare system.

Free market healthcare companies love providing contraception to their customers since it lowers the cost of health insurance for ALL of their clients. It's not costing Mr. Hansgen a dime!

The Letter writer Fred T. Hansgen has shown us his lack of knowledge of how insurance actually works. You have probably helped pay for a lot of things Fred. But I'm sure you were worried about that a long time ago and it played into your decision of whom you worked for. Choosing a employer who doesn't pay for contraceptives for women is an important decision as we all know.

Well, I don't want to pay for chemotherapy for lung cancer patients who are on Medicare. Smoking is against my religion, yet you give treatment for it a free pass. Why? Where's your outrage for that? What about the conservatives being up in arms about treatment for diabetes for Medicare recipients? Both of these illnesses are mostly preventable and caused by bad life choices. Where's the anger?

The official policy of my church says, "Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion."

What is the difference between paying for an abortion and paying for abortion-inducing drugs? Yet Obama wants to compel employers to do this. I say it is time for him to go.

T party.."What is the difference between paying for an abortion and paying for abortion-inducing drugs? " Let's get back to basic folks. Once again the right wing has performed a semantic slight of hand, and we're not going to let you get by with it.

Abortion originally meant the termination of a pregnancy where the fetus was viable or nearly viable. The termination of a pregnancy in it's earliest stages wasn't abortion. The matter of fact way that "conservatives" now use the term abortion for any action, at any stage of a pregnancy, including pre fertilization, for pregnancy prevention or termination is just simply a pejorative act.

Conservatives are the ones who have put their churches in the position of having to be opposed to contraception (except for the catholics). Has the LDS church come out against contraception? No, and they won't either.

Believe what you may but liberals, moderates, and over 50% of repbulicans refuse to share your usurption of the language. Pills, IUD's, and morning after pills are not abortion.

@JoeBlow "How is the govt control I list different from the govt control that you complain about?"

Very little, except that in your case, it probably does not violate your conscience to help out a family of six. It violates my conscience to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.

Government compulsion is the issue. Formerly a person could choose whether to subscribe to an insurance plan that included care for large families. It was her choice. If she wanted to shop around for a different plan, she could.

Now all plans are forced to cover what the government says they must cover, and employers of a certain size company are required to buy it for their employees, even when it violates their conscience to do so.

Obamacare must be repealed, and in order to do this, we must vote Obama out.

Well now Roy Blunt wants to pass an amendment that'll let any employer block any part of health insurance coverage they don't agree with for moral reasons. Apparently to Republicans healthcare should be between you and your doctor... and your employer.

Well, let's probe what the DN is bothered by:

Oh spare me. Hysterical or what?

If the guy next door wants to use roads, I should not have to pay for it. If the kid down the street wants to go to school, I should not have to pay for it. If the lady through the block who cannot afford health insurance needs emergency surgery, I should not be involved and she should just die. It's about me. I don't believe in the common good. I definitely don't believe that we should address our nation's problems, including preventing problems that will cost more later. No one is going to tell me what to do. The government is bad, even though I accept Social Security and Medicaire. I always apply for subsidized student loans and unemployment insurance. I hate the so-called safety net, even though I use it. I'll just sit in my room and let my paranoia run wild because the country is going to pot and I don't want anyone to fix it. Get off my lawn!

'Now they want us to buy contraceptives for other people...' - Letter

So, we shouldn't pay for birth control, oh sorry 'abortion pills' (even though there's no fetus yet)...

but we CAN pay for congress to have healthcare, for life.

** 'Controversial Sen. Chris Buttars announces retirement at end of legislative session' - By Dennis Romboy and Amanda Verzello, Deseret News - 03/11/11

'A lifelong diabetic, the 68-year-old Buttars has suffered poor health in recent years.' - article

I would rather pay for ONE birth control pill...

then 'help' a person, raise a child they had no ability to plan for:

** 'Cost of children? The numbers aren't kidding' - USA Today - By Jean Chatzky - 08/10/07

If you make: $44,500 You will spend: $143,790' - article

With regulating of health care, the feds will control what we eat as a way of controlling medical care. Look at the four year old in North Carolina and the federal food inspector.

This is a foolish issue.

1st, this is NOT abortion. That, happens before the end of the 1st trimester I beleive.

Peole are now trying to say life begins the NIGHT after.

2nd, abortion is legal. Has been since Roe vs. Wade in 1973.

39 years later, we have to have the SAME arguments.

3rd, let's look at what HAPPENS when birth control is availible:

**Teen pregnancy, abortion rates at record low By James Kelleher Reuters 02/08/12

Chicago Birth and abortion rates among US teens feel to record lows in 2008 as increased use of contraceptives sent the overall teen pregnancy rate to its lowest level since at least 1972, a study showed Wednesday. article

Vs. when birth control is NOT availible:

** 'Judge releases beaten teen, citing state's abortion law' - By Emiley Morgan - Published by DSNews - 10/14/09

'A 17-year-old girl who paid a man to beat her in the hopes of terminating her pregnancy has been...' - article

This 17 year old girl factually had NO access to birth control. And paid a man to beat the pregnancy out of her.

FYI, this happened in Utah.

'Better alternative' to birth control?

I, disagree.

'With regulating of health care, the feds will control what we eat as a way of controlling medical care.' - worf | 8:42 a.m. Feb. 17, 2012

I am glad you brought this up worf.

Because we have examples of children being dictated diet for infants...

** 'Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance' - By Nancy Lofholm - Denver Post - 10/12/09

'By the numbers, Alex (Lange) is in the 99th percentile for height and weight for babies his age. Insurers don't take babies above the 95th percentile, no matter how healthy they are otherwise.
"I could understand if we could control what he's eating. But he's 4 months old. He's breast-feeding. We can't put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill," joked his frustrated father, Bernie Lange...' - article

...from PRIVATE corporations. (Er, people)

So, if goverment is NOT doing it...

but private insurance comapnies are...

which, will you support?

Where was Fred's outrage when Viagra was made legal?

Is Fred aware that he pays for his neighbor's Viagra? And that his neighbor pays for his?

Yet, where's their outrage over this?

Basically, all I'm hearing from the right wing is that they're cool with getting men what they want/need. Yet, are completely against getting women what they need. Which is typical of the right wing, only concerned with themselves.

As usual, the topic is how to prevent birth and how to destroy the unborn.

Some in America want us to stop remembering that life is precious to God, that Christ came to earth to redeem mankind, not to prevent birth or to destroy the unborn.

If neither the Father or the Son believes in preventing birth or in destroying the unborn, then just whose plan is it to prevent conception and to allow the destruction of unborn life?

Surely we have not become so depraved that we no longer respect life, particularly the life of the unborn. Surely we do not think that we have the right to defy our Creator who told us to multiply and replenish the earth. He has told us that the earth has enough and to spare. Selfish people would tell us that THEY don't have enough, so we must help them prevent life and to destroy that unborn life that they could not prevent.

Government is prohibited from interfering with religion because the founders knew that if ever a time came that America would be controlled by people who rejected God, that religion would be destroyed.

That time is now.

Pagan,

Will you ever understand that people can choose an insurance company, but their only choice, when it comes to government, is to either obey or go to jail.

Doesn't that mean anything to you?

Would you force anyone to believe in YOUR religious doctrine? Would you force anyone to worship YOUR god? Why then do you think that government should be able to force us to believe in secularism? Why do you think that government should be able to replace the God that we choose to worship with the godlessness found in Washington?

How can Obama quote scripture when he insisted that nurses NOT try to save babies aborted late term but to allow them to die, when he "served" as a Illinois State Senator? Is that what anyone who loves Christ would do?

What's that scripture? Oh yes, Matthew 15:8, "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."

'Surely we do not think that we have the right to defy our Creator who told us to multiply and replenish the earth.' - J Thompson | 8:59 a.m. Feb. 17, 2012

Replenish?

How about moderate?

** 'The challenges and opportunities that come with population growth and seven billion people' - By Laura Marostica, Deseret News - 11/04/11

'According to a recent Reuters report, these challenges will include climate change, food shortages and overcrowded urban areas. About 925 million people already suffer from hunger...' - article

Theology is nice, but when faced with the reality of 7 billion mouths to feed...?

Falls short.

If you value human life, give it a decent quality of, life.

Not put it up for adoption, or fail to teach young persons who to prevent unwanted births.

Example:

Birstol Palin.

The premise of this letter is misleading.

We should 'stop' goverment control...

but LITIGATE what happens in a persons body.

Double. Standard.

Good day.

Common Sense =

An OUNCE of prevention is worth a POUND of the cure.

Conservatives such as this letter writer appear to lack good old Common Sense.

29 cents now,
prevents an unplanned pregnacy that could cost Society $2.8 million later.

And to think - Conservatives claim to be all about lowering taxes, reducing the drain on Social Services and dependance, and helping individuals secure financial security and stability.
A direct result of unplanned pregnancies.

I guess it's all a bunch of whooie lip service!

Fred T Hansgen is correct. Government controls nearly every aspect of our lives, 24 hours a day, 7days a week, 52 weeks a year and has been do so for over 200 years.

The only way a person can avoid this terrible situation is to live totally alone and not have any contact with other people. If, however, you want to be a part of a society of others like your self and have the protection and benefits of group effort in your life, you will be forced to make concessions and agreements with those others to share both the benefits and the pain of the group.

Some of the agreements may not fit us, but we accept them in order to get the ones we want. You donât get to pick and choose.

The other thing is, government, in our case, is not some foreign unfeeling monster imposed upon us by the devil, it is just others of our group trying to enforce the agreements that we made or accepted by our being in the group. And because our group is growing in number along with knowledge and technology the government must grow also.

The problem is that the enforcing those agreements can favor commercial business and be the cause of corruption in our government. If you would change this, you must remove the business interference from government. The rest of the problem is this is not the only problem we have with proper government.