Ms.
Armacost,
In reference to your article, “Obamacare’s Mandate Jeopardizes Religious Liberty for all Denominations” (http://www.wisconsinchristiannews.com/view.php?sid=3779). I am afraid I do not follow your logic. I, personally, think abortion is bad and do not know of anyone who disagrees. I just do not see how facilitating the healthcare for poor people or how providing insurance for employees with immoral coverage jeopardizes religious freedom. I understand that the insurance mandate makes it easier for some to obtain some healthcare they may not otherwise have and some of those healthcare choices may be objectionable to some institutions executives, but how does that make it so those institutions can not espouse their chosen religious moral code? To my mind explaining to others your religious code of ethics and that sort of stuff is religious freedom, not preventing others under your control from making choices.
That religious institutions pay some portion of the health insurance premium does mean that they will be supporting some of their employee's choices for healthcare they find objectionable, but that does not stop them from explaining to those employees why those are bad choices, or the administration’s religion. I liken the situation to a teenager living at home. They can not act in immoral ways the parents disapprove of while living \with their parents. But that is just the parents exercising their power and the teenagers are not legal adults, or, if they are, it is only respectful to act according to the parent's wishes, but they do have the choice. Legally there may be some rationale for the religious institutions to not have to pay. We will have to wait a bit to see how the courts rule. Of course no solution that lets the insurance mandate stand is any good to your mind, but I can imagine some mechanism for working around it, for instance the employee pays extra for choices the employer finds objectionable could be implemented. It is too bad those who are employed by those religious institutions will not get any choice in the matter.
“... the Obama Administration’s blatant disregard for the cherished First Amendment right to religious liberty has fallen on deaf ears...” I am trying to understand what all you are saying, but I am having a time making sense of it and I am not deaf, just need some help understanding your logic. I just do not see anyone being thrown in jail or burned at the stake for believing in 'right to life' (now that would be an attack on their religious freedoms).
As an aside you mention that rationing of healthcare is on the horizon. I suppose that for folks of your class it would be a change. For me and my wife, we already have healthcare rationing because we belong to group health insurance plans and they already ration our healthcare, though it is minimal, it is there.
In reference to your article, “Obamacare’s Mandate Jeopardizes Religious Liberty for all Denominations” (http://www.wisconsinchristiannews.com/view.php?sid=3779). I am afraid I do not follow your logic. I, personally, think abortion is bad and do not know of anyone who disagrees. I just do not see how facilitating the healthcare for poor people or how providing insurance for employees with immoral coverage jeopardizes religious freedom. I understand that the insurance mandate makes it easier for some to obtain some healthcare they may not otherwise have and some of those healthcare choices may be objectionable to some institutions executives, but how does that make it so those institutions can not espouse their chosen religious moral code? To my mind explaining to others your religious code of ethics and that sort of stuff is religious freedom, not preventing others under your control from making choices.
That religious institutions pay some portion of the health insurance premium does mean that they will be supporting some of their employee's choices for healthcare they find objectionable, but that does not stop them from explaining to those employees why those are bad choices, or the administration’s religion. I liken the situation to a teenager living at home. They can not act in immoral ways the parents disapprove of while living \with their parents. But that is just the parents exercising their power and the teenagers are not legal adults, or, if they are, it is only respectful to act according to the parent's wishes, but they do have the choice. Legally there may be some rationale for the religious institutions to not have to pay. We will have to wait a bit to see how the courts rule. Of course no solution that lets the insurance mandate stand is any good to your mind, but I can imagine some mechanism for working around it, for instance the employee pays extra for choices the employer finds objectionable could be implemented. It is too bad those who are employed by those religious institutions will not get any choice in the matter.
“... the Obama Administration’s blatant disregard for the cherished First Amendment right to religious liberty has fallen on deaf ears...” I am trying to understand what all you are saying, but I am having a time making sense of it and I am not deaf, just need some help understanding your logic. I just do not see anyone being thrown in jail or burned at the stake for believing in 'right to life' (now that would be an attack on their religious freedoms).
As an aside you mention that rationing of healthcare is on the horizon. I suppose that for folks of your class it would be a change. For me and my wife, we already have healthcare rationing because we belong to group health insurance plans and they already ration our healthcare, though it is minimal, it is there.
Please
note that this is public.
Comments
Post a Comment