Quantcast
U.S. & World

Religious groups weigh in on Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling

Comments

Return To Article
  • Aussie Teacher WESTON, VT
    June 28, 2012 9:09 p.m.

    Once again the US is shoing how hypocritical they are. You must be the only people on earth who claim to love God and yet are quite happy to see people go bankrupt because they need helth care. The only place where a person is scared to go to hospital because they can't afford the costs.
    How lucky am I that if I or my wife become ill then we can go to hospital (or a doctor) and get treated and not have to lose my house in doing so.
    How people are so facinated by the US totally escapes me!
    Flash on the surface, but sick and dangerous underneath.
    All gloss and nothing else.

    God Bless Amerika? I don't think so, He/She has better things to do than 'bless' a country that cares nothing for its own.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 28, 2012 9:32 p.m.

    Here again, we need to keep religion out of politics.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    June 28, 2012 10:07 p.m.

    I don't know if God judges whole societies, but if He does, then one measure that must surely enter into this judgment would be how the weakest, least self-reliant, most dependent citizens are treated. If there is condemnation, surely it would be greater if that society is a rich one.

  • Gandalf Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2012 10:47 p.m.

    Mark B, you are dead on.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    June 29, 2012 7:20 a.m.

    How society treats people is not only a function of government. God wants us to care for the poor, but he never said it had to be done by a tax and spend and waste big government program (that also provides free abortions just for the convenience of the mother). Obamacare was not the only way to accomplish noble goals; in fact, it has and will continue to have many unintended consequences, and logically, would not be able to succeed in its goals without bankrupting the country. So just because someone doesn't support Obamacare does not mean they are heartless. In fact, it might mean they think other options will actually work much, much better. The GOP did provide a number of good ideas, which were all ignored by Obama, even though he said he'd take good ideas from anyone.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    June 29, 2012 9:50 a.m.

    Fair enough, RG. What's the BEST unused idea that the GOP offered to reforming health care? And if the whole idea of reform by government is so bad, then what should we do? Go back to coverage only for the well-employed? Go back to the 50's, when it didn't matter much? I'm for that as long as PRICES get taken back to what they were then.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    June 29, 2012 9:53 a.m.

    And as the affordable health care act continues to cause raising prices for all people, some applaud the access not realizing the limit it will place on services rendered and quality of the care given. As the health care system gradually reduces the services that it provides, maybe we can all be like Aussie happy to get care even if it substandard and 50 years behind the times.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 29, 2012 12:27 p.m.

    To "Aussie Teacher" going through personal financial problems is much better than what happens under systems that have universal care. For example in England doctors admit that every year 130,000 people are euthanized intentionally through policies that prevent caring for the elderly.

    To "Mark B" we know that God judges individuals, and not whole societies. Go and read the Bible.

    Some of the best ideas that the GOP offered were to cut regulations on health insurance companies. This was to be done by allowing insurance providers to sell across state lines. You also have the idea of tort reform which would make suing doctors harder, which brings down malpractice insurance rates and is known to get more specialists into areas where tort reform has been in effect.

  • George Bronx, NY
    June 29, 2012 2:04 p.m.

    @redshirt
    " in England doctors admit that every year 130,000 people are euthanized intentionally through policies that prevent caring for the elderly"

    rally? please provide us a reliable source for his claim, because as usual you claim to have "facts" that seem to have escaped everyone else.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 29, 2012 4:14 p.m.

    It just a simple principle of economics, supply vs demand. Once Obama care is fully implemented the demand for people to get health care will exceed the supply of health care providers which will result in long waiting periods before you are seen by a doctor. Rationing of health care will be inevitable.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    June 29, 2012 5:43 p.m.

    "implemented the demand for people to get health care will exceed the supply of health care providers "
    Rationing would only occur if there is a limit on adding new doctors. I am not aware of a law or social taboo about more people becoming doctors. Historically, enterprising people rise up to fill the demand created by the shortage. More people will go to medical school and become doctors. Why? Because a job is guaranteed. Foreign doctors will also be drawn to the United States to fill the shortages.

    Are you concerned at the future rise in employment?

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    June 29, 2012 7:13 p.m.

    per RedShirt at 12:27 p.m. June 29, 2012

    *To "Mark B" we know that God judges individuals, and not whole societies. Go and read the Bible.*

    Like Sodom & Gomorrah?

    There may be an example or two in the BoM.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    June 29, 2012 10:03 p.m.

    " maybe we can all be like Aussie happy to get care even if it substandard and 50 years behind the times." So says Hellooo 

    Among the seven nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last overall, as it did in the 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, coordination, efficiency, and equity. The Netherlands ranks first, followed closely by the U.K. and Australia.-Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: How the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally, June 23, 2010, Authors: Karen Davis, Ph.D., Cathy Schoen, M.S., and Kristof Stremikis, M.P.P.

    I have many other studies that show the US healthcare system is inferior to the Aussie system if you need them Hellooo

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    June 29, 2012 10:44 p.m.

    ". . .going through personal financial problems is much better than what happens under systems that have universal care. For example in England doctors admit that every year 130,000 people are euthanized intentionally through policies that prevent caring for the elderly."

    No, Redshirt "doctors" do not admit that. One doctor, Professor Patrick Pullicino, made a claim:

    "He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country.

    "There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP.

    "Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’."-Top doctor's chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year, The Daily Mail, Steve Doughty, June 19, 2012

    The sensationalist headline not withstanding, Professor Pullicino is not admitting that 130,000 patients are being euthanized.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    June 29, 2012 11:19 p.m.

    I appreciate this well written and balanced article. But, I still have some questions. Now that Obamacare is the law of the land, does it mean that insurance companies or the federal government will be paying for: Abortions? Birth control pills? Treatment for tobacco, alcohol and drug abuse related illnesses? Treatment for STDs? Treatment for obesity? In other words, will people who strive to live a healthy, moral lifestyle be forced to pay for the irresponsible behavior of others?

  • Good-Heavens Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 30, 2012 12:57 a.m.

    To JSB: Yes, it will pay for all health care problems. We don't apply a litmus test to what your lifestyle was like before giving care. Or would you have it that we just care for folks that live by your definition of a healthy, moral lifestyle?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 30, 2012 6:52 a.m.

    Patriot..... God doesn't judge societies? Really? We never see where a group of people was "punished" for their inequity as a group rather than as individuals? If that is the case, I have whole sections in my scriptures you don't.


    " God wants us to care for the poor, but he never said it had to be done by a tax and spend and waste big government program (that also provides free abortions just for the convenience of the mother)"

    I sort of beg to differ. God didn't prescribe how we do a lot of things. But as a society, "WE" formed a government to deal with our common needs. Defense. Highways. Educate our kids. Provide safety serves like police and fire departments. The list goes on with things that at an individual level, we could not afford to do. But as a society, through our elected representation, we fund things so that we can have reliable and predictable services that at an individual level we could not provide. And we did so in a way that doesn't discriminate against any individual. We don't pick and choose who gets access to fire protection, police, schools.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 30, 2012 7:27 a.m.

    There is no way Obamacare will succeed. Everything we were told about it, what it would accomplish and what it won’t do is a lie! 44 million Americans ( you can probably double that in less than 5 years) will now supposedly get free healthcare. What that really means is 44 million Americans will become even more dependent on other people and locked into poverty, an even more permanent poverty! Is compassion measured by dependency? How will the taxpayers ever pick up the tab for ever more and more dependency? Deficits and the national debt will explode! Yes we need to help the poor but that help must not create ever more dependency! It will cost us millions of jobs because businesses cannot absorb the costs, thus those paying taxes will continue to decrease and those needed every kind of welfare will explode! Obamcare will only increase the number of Americans that are dependant on the government and dramatically harm every part of our economy.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    June 30, 2012 7:56 a.m.

    @RG: "Obamacare was not the only way to accomplish noble goals"

    What exactly were those ideas offered by the GOP? What is your plan to help? I ask, because you are saying the government shouldn't be involved (in spite of the "general Welfare" clause of the preamble to our Constitution) but I don't see enough private help being offered. In fact, the little help I do see, mostly from religious organizations, comes with a lot of conditions and strings attached to that help.

    Jesus din't tell people to help the poor only if they are of a certain faith or political perspective. He said help. He said love. He said do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    And if you believe our current administration is leading our nation in the wrong direction, wouldn't one way to counteract that be to act more Christ-like with say, a nationalized healthcare system for those who can't afford health care? Because no part of Obama Care, even in its original form, says people can't keep paying for private, premium insurance policies. It's sole purpose is to help those who cannot help themselves.

  • twinkleberry67 Layton, UT
    June 30, 2012 11:12 a.m.

    Keeping religion out of politics? When the state dictates to a religious organization who provides nonprofit healthcare what they can and can’t do regardless of the fact that contraception and elective abortions to promote said contraception are a major violation of the religious organization’s tenants, these religions have the constitutional right to defend their beliefs. I hear people right and left practically salivating about how they will never pay another doctor bill again and would rather tie up an emergency room for a free Tylenol or a band aid and are expecting to get all the free plastic surgery they want for life. If there is one truth that has been throughout the ages it is this: he who has the gold makes the rules. If people think healthcare is a right, they will be sadly disappointed to find the state will arbitrarily decide who gets what and when. Then what are you guys going to do? Anyone think of that?

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2012 12:07 p.m.

    JSB, the Constitution begins "We the people..."
    It does not say "... in order to form a more perfect union for JSB",

    We the people are a mixed lot. The young men and women fighting and dying for your freedoms right now in Iraq and Afghanistan? They drink. They smoke. Some use drugs. Some are overweight. They are faced with greater moral choices (like whom to kill) than any you've faced in Sugar City Idaho.

    With such great patriots saving your freedoms, yes, absolutely yes, insurance companies should pay for whatever medical needs they and their fellow Americans have.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    June 30, 2012 12:15 p.m.

    twinkleberry67 11:12 a.m. June 30, 2012

    Contrary to what you claim, no religious organization (i.e., a church) is being required to provide contraception and elective abortion.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    June 30, 2012 12:22 p.m.

    I wonder how many Americans clamoring for Universal Healthcare have ever lived in a nation with Universal Healthcare. I lived in Canada. I have seen Universal Healthcare. It's not what people make it out to be. There was literally a three month waiting list for an MRI in the entire Atlantic Canada region. Three months! How is that possible, you ask? Well, when the government ends up paying the bills, the government has to decide what is vital and what can wait. MRI's, apparently, can wait.

    How about this: We increase competition among insurance companies by getting rid of these ridiculous interstate restrictions and regulations. Competition drives costs down and creates better products. Then, we can cap the salaries of greedy trial lawyers and help cut the malpractice insurance burden on doctors and hospitals. There are two things that are already better than the President's idea of healthcare.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 30, 2012 1:45 p.m.

    The greatest detractor of personal freedom in America is poor health and poor health care. That fact places health right behind food in the priority of life.

    Business people tend to promote forced needs upon people and fight any attempt of people to satisfy their own needs without the help of private business. Especially when that help comes from the national government.

    Churches are business organizations. The have a product to sell and have much greater freedom of operation than other businesses. For instance, there is no standard or requirement on the product they sell. They are totally exempt from any liability of customer dissatisfaction.

    The business part of churches puts them in competition with all other kinds of businesses, for their goal like that of big business is to own and control the wealth of the world.

    Business is at war with the national government because it takes away the opportunity to profit from the needs of people. The regard the national government just like their non-government competitor enemies.

    Churches as business entities regard the nation government in the same way.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 30, 2012 3:02 p.m.

    TAKE heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
    Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
    But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
    That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

    Matt 6:1-4

    I do not think Christ had government mandated health care in mind when he taught about helping the poor and needy.

    Mandatory government health care seems more like the adversary’s plan of force and coercion to achieve a righteous goal.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 30, 2012 4:38 p.m.

    2
    The greatest detractor of personal freedom in America is poor health and poor health care. That fact places health right behind food in the priority of life.

    Business people tend to promote forced needs upon people and fight any attempt of people to satisfy their own needs without the help of private business. Especially when that help comes from the national government.

    Churches are business organizations. The have a product to sell and have much greater freedom of operation than other businesses. For instance, there is no standard or requirement on the product they sell. They are totally exempt from any liability of customer dissatisfaction.

    The business part of churches puts them in competition with all other kinds of businesses, for their goal like that of big business is to own and control the wealth of the world.

    Business is at war with the national government because it takes away the opportunity to profit from the needs of people. They regard the national government just like their non-government competitor enemies.

    Churches as business entities regard the nation government in the same way.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    July 2, 2012 7:39 p.m.

    Hey, where's the ACLU? Where's Barry Linn and American United for the Separation of Church and State? Aren't chuches suppose to keep their mouths shut about all things political? Aren't churches suppose to stay entirely out of government affairs?

    Oops, I forgot, that only applies to Christian conservative churches like the LDS Church or the Catholic Church. Liberal churches and liberal ministries can be as political as they want and the ACLU will never bother them. In fact, they'll give them a helping hand.

    @JSB

    You said "...will people who strive to live a healthy, moral lifestyle be forced to pay for the irresponsible behavior of others?"

    Of course. In the view of liberals, it's called redistribution of health.

  • Selznik Saint George, UT
    July 2, 2012 9:45 p.m.

    twinkle -- when religious organizations enter the public sector with activities like providing healthcare, they have to obey the same laws as everybody else. If a religion wants to set up a hospital, staffed only with people from that religion, and serving only people from that religion, THEN the hospital could more properly be considered an offshoot of their religious organization. And since none but like-believing religionists would be involved, there wouldn't be any conflict. But if a hospital is open to all people, and employs people from all faiths, then the hospital is a public enterprise (whether or not it makes a profit) and these carping cries of religious intolerance are actually way off the subject.