Comments about ‘Cardinal Dolan says Catholic church could be Obamacare's biggest 'cheerleader'’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 3 2013 1:31 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@maclouie – “there are plenty of examples how humans treat others when they are void of any knowledge or belief of God or an afterlife.”

There are indeed and most are very positive – see Sweden, Japan, Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, Austria, France, Germany, Australia, etc., etc., etc…

At the same time I think the world has many examples of how religion divides people and is responsible for much of the global conflicts we see today.

curbee
North Las Vegas, NV

Still, after everything this administration has done to embarrass the citizens, you read a list of comments like this and find people who still believe in him and in his legacy program. It is inexplicable to me. I can't help but wonder what it wiould take for them to back away from him. Heads in sand.

slow down
Provo, UT

Raushenbush gives us the current rules of the game: gay marriage is won through the equation: gay = fundamental identity, or in this case: gay & married = fundamental identity. Identity politics as usual. The idea that marriage is a social institution that requires a social definition apart from what we may feel about this or that individual is simply ignored. And what about people who oppose redefining marriage because they feel their own identity enormously bound up with it? Isn't redefining marriage, by this logic, an act of personal animosity towards such people? (Think of those loving accusations of bigotry.) In any case, the issue is misdiagnosed. As a practical fact, one opposes or supports the _further spread_ of the legal & cultural redefinition of marriage. There is something more nuanced and messy about this state of affairs. By Raushenbush's thinking, however, the minute a single political body approves same-sex marriage, the entire world is automatically bigoted for not immediately approving the same law. This is nothing but rhetorical bullying. Dolan is merely saying that something with significant human value gets whited out when we say "no" to the whole idea of men & women and mothers & fathers.

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

The Roman Catholic Church is in a quandary as the priesthood tends to support dictators, kings, authoritarian governments, socialism and would support communism if it were atheistic. In this case the Cardinal is saying Obamacare or socialized medicine is good if it were not for the contraceptive mandate. The head of the Communist party in the USA supports Obama care vigorously too because it is the predecessor to socialized medicine. In South Korean priests actually support much of what North Korea does. If there is a contrast between two systems certainly one can see it in Korea. Free market, free enterprise, capitalism, private property rights, lower taxes, less red tape are daily blasted by the left, but it is what has given us our prosperity. Obama continually fights it so we have a sluggish economy, but given the chance it would go great.

Pendergast
Salt Lake City, UT

re: maclouie 8:38 a.m. Dec. 4

Pascal's wager strikes again!

RedShirtCalTech
Pasedena, CA

I would caution the Catholic Church about joining with the Obama administration like this. Once churches become little more than a propaganda arm for the government, they die a slow and painful death. Just look at the Catholic Church in Europe and South America. Yes lots of people consider themselves catholic, but they rarely attend and barely belive in the church itself. Take care of your own people first, use the Catholic Charity hospitals to care for the poor, and do so using the generosity of your members.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

Yesterday President Obama said that there would be no repeal of the ACA while he is President. I wonder if he realizes that that is only about 3 years away? Any future Congress and President could make any and all change necessary to the ACA, including scrapping the whole thing and starting over, which is probably the best idea. In any case, for this thing to work, the ACA will need to look a whole lot different in the coming years than it does now. In fact I suspect the term Obamacare will not even be relevent when future Presidents and Congresses begin to fix this mess. It may be called the ACA part 2, 3, or 4 ect. One thing is for sure, it had better become something less intrusive and costly than it seems to be now. Why did the Democrats have to mess with everyones health care when the purpose was supposedly to insure the 40 million uninsured in the first place? It was like taking a whole car apart in order to give it a tune-up. Bad idea and policy.

elarue
NEW YORK, NY

DN shows its right wing bias by trying to use this as another validation to eliminate Obamacare. But what would really solve the Cardinal's concerns as well as the health care crisis in America would be Universal, Single Payer, Medicare for All. Or barring that, Medicare you can buy into, as proposed by Alan Grayson. That would put individuals' health care choices back to the individual (and their doctor) and leave the employer out of the equation altogether.

kargirl
Sacramento, CA

Those who now advocate for Medicare For All--you are aware, are you not, that the President would have liked that, which is, after all, single-payer medical insurance? We know what ACA is, it is the perfect not being the enemy of the good. It is people who were not insured, some, never before in their lives, getting to doctors. Now, just because the ACA mandates contraceptive medications for women (which are also used for other purposes, such as chronic female reproductive system diseases) does not require those whose faith does not permit it to use them. The word choice means that one has the option of deciding whether or not to make use of a product or service. It affects her alone, and her religious life, which is not up to her friends, politicians, and certainly not total strangers. It is up to her doctors to advise her if she has medical conditions that can be impacted by pregnancy and childbirth. Again, it is not the business of those in politics, however they may feel, to decide for total strangers. Ask yourself--who do you want deciding YOUR medical care?

hermounts
Pleasanton, CA

If the Catholic Church is for "universal" health care (which is really government health care) in principle, it seems to me they are making a fundamental category mistake, failing to distinguish between society and government. Society should care for the poor and needy, but that's not the same as saying government should. Catholics should be familiar with the concept of subsidiarity.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Tyler D

I have two major problems with your comment:

1) The left bullies dissent in the hope that many people do not apply reason and logic in their desperate attempt to avoid being labeled a bigot, homophobe, etc; thereby encouraging the adoption left-wing dogma out of lazy thinking or spinelessness.

I am homosexual but not myopic. Equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriage requires a suspension of reason and logic by the willfully blind. A cat is not a buffalo either. That does not make me a buffalophobe; it merely make accusers hypocritical

2) The 1st Amendment specifically guarantees that the government may NOT interfere with the free exercise of religion. Government demanding the relinquishment of ones personal religious conviction for the sake of getting a business license or health insurance is an affront to religious liberty. Furthermore; any individual Catholic (or other) has the right to decide their level of devotion to their church doctrine - the government has NO right to do it for them. And you can buy your own birth control for a few bucks without the expecting local diocese to subsidize you. You are NOT a victim - you are the perpetrator.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Ultra Bob


"I have no quarrel with the Catholic Church in what they believe and teach but I oppose their efforts to force other people to believe as they do."



Wow - that is so incredibly offensive. YOU are forcing Catholics to pay for your birth control. You can buy it yourself. You are NOT the victim. You are forcing your views onto others, then blaming the real victim when they resist. You are the perpetrator.



GZE

If a business is owned by Catholics (or Mormons or Jews etc.) you can expect it to have a Catholic conscience. To expect anyone to give up their conscience upon obtaining a business license is horrifying.

And please don't give us the law is the law argument since there is a natural nexus between accounting/taxes and business, but businesses have operated thousand of years without providing abortofacients, because there is no nexus - except that you want it. Furthermore many adopted laws are struck down because they are simply unconstitutional (i.e. sitting at the back of the bus)

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

bungalow

150 million uninsured people due to pre-existing conditions??? I'm not calling you a liar, but that statistic is one I've never heard from Obama or any other source. And if that were the truth, I do believe Obama would have tried to sell his ACA on the basis of that particular problem rather than trying to sell it on the idea of 40 million uninsured. Even yesterday he made the claim that now the 40 million have insurance because of his program. As for the E/R and taxpayer, just who do you think is going to pay for Obamacare in the first place? The taxpayer. Yes Medi/Medi is taxpayer funded, but a lot of health care is privately funded by insurance companies. I hope you realize that if Obama and many Democrats had their way, all health care would be government funded. It's called "Single Payer". What I suggest, is both, private care for those that buy insurance. The ACA should leave them alone, which is what Obama said would happen, (he did lie,) and then of course a "safety net" for the indigent and needy. Pretty much like we had it before the ACA.

American Patriot
Eagle Mountain, UT

Furry1993...For starters I don't like Newt Gingrich and never have. I really don't like Hillary Clinton or her husband. Back in the 90s my family and I had a very nice insurance program that suited us just fine. I was opposed to many things I saw coming out of Washington, D.C. in the 90s.

The problem WE have now is an out-of-control man in the WH forcing a program down everyone's throat. That, Furry1993, is NOT freedom of choice. That is tyranny.

Now, because of this idiotic ACA millions of Americans have LOST - that is - LOST their perfectly good insurance coverage and every person I have talked to sees their premiums doubling like crazy. One would have to be blind not to see the damage this administration has caused this nation and that's just with the ACA.

As I said earlier, the ACA is a train wreck happening and it's because we have the poorest leaders in this nation we have ever had - EVER. They are socialists and communists as I see it. As a veteran - I don't like socialists and communists because their ideologies are WRONG.

kargirl
Sacramento, CA

m. g. scott, I hope you realize, a lot of bankruptcies and impoverished people have come from the privately insured folks who have gotten serious medical illnesses such as cancer or heart, kidney, or liver problems needing extensive, and expensive medical interventions, and these are not only elderly citizens, but those who were sure they had enough and more to live comfortably. I have read of couples at the point of considering the choice between selling all they owned, and liquidating assets to avoid bankruptcy and/or qualify for Medicaid, or file for divorce so that bankruptcy could be avoided and the ill partner could receive the treatments available. Neither should be necessary. This happens through the privately funded medical insurance sector, and ends up with more people depending on the public sector who never intended to be there, and the reason is obvious--the private sector is about profit, not wellness. If a person is sick, private companies have no use for your business.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments