Plenty of religious folks still out there letting their children die of simple
infections while they pray.If one of these religious folks was your
boss, and felt that prayer was the only insurance against illness that they were
going to provide. Should the Government allow them to opt out? If
so, there will be a huge growth in those religions being joined by corporations,
who are (now) people.
There always has been and always will be controversy when the government
overextends itself and gets involved in peoples lives in ways it shouldn't.
This is no exception. In fact, it's turning into a prime example because of
the extent of it's over-reach.Few people seem to understand
how, why and to the extent of which Obamacare, in it's completeness, is
leading our country down a socialistic path. Once put in motion, the social
momentum of such a bill is extremely difficult to reverse. However,
when the general public someday understands the true costs of this controversial
legislation, it will rue the day it was ever passed. Obamacare is on the path to
becoming the single most expensive legislation ever passed in the history of the
USA, and its far-reaching tentacles will inhibit the economy from ever achieving
meaningful expansion. It will remain extremely controversial until it is either
nullified or substantially changed.
“We all know that insurance companies do not provide anything for
free," No one else provides anything for "free" either.
"Free" just means someone else pays, there is no free lunch. Its all
payed for by someone.
Contraception is basic, preventative health care for women, and should be
available to ALL women through their insurance. The only issue for discussion
is how to construct and fund the acquisition of that insurance. Let's face it -- we all have insurance coverage for things we don't
need and for things that we find objectionable (both on religious grounds and
otherwise -- for example, I personally find insurance for viagra to be
objectionable if it is being prescribed to treat anything other than pulmonary
arterial hypertension) but we still get, and pay for, that insurance when we get
a basic health insurance policy. For those of us who get insurance through our
employment, our employers already pay part of the premium for our insurance
coverage for things they find objectionable. The fuss about
contraception coverage is poitical in nature only, and its sole real purpose is
to try to keep the President from bettering the lot of ALL Americans, including
women. If the employers or employees don't believe in contraception, they
do't have to use it. It is wrong for them to try to deny all forms of
basic preventative health care to women.
You, the writers and editors of Deseret News, had plenty of opportunity to
critique the policies of this administration. Your peers belittled the rest of
us who expressed concern about the healthcare bill. We knew the costs would
become outrageous (and they are...and it will only get worse). We also expressed
grave concern regarding some of the details of the bill that would conflict with
religious views. But you did nothing. Perhaps you're afraid of
saying the truth. I've wondered myself why the Deseret News and its
affiliate KSL have made no criticism at all of the Obama administration during
the past 4.5 years. So don't come to us complaining today of
the ill effects of what this administration is doing in its efforts to
fundamentally transform America. You had your chance to speak up and
didn't. So why don't you deal with it like the rest of us.
To CFI - the debate is not between religious people imposing their will on
others and whatever constitutes medical necessity. The issue is how to provide
a new right (greater health care coverage) without infringing on a right that
has existed since the county began - religious freedom. It's a debate
worth having, and I think it can be had without labeling the religious community
as heartless and selfish.