Public comments indicate few like Obamacare rule on birth control

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 29, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    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.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    April 29, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    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.

  • SME Bountiful, UT
    April 29, 2013 6:41 a.m.

    “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.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 27, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    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.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    April 27, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    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.

  • Hordak Lehi, UT
    April 26, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    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.