Letters: ACA criticisms just hysterical

I have enjoyed reading Kathleen Parker on these pages, believing that you had finally found a voice of reason among conservatives. Parker managed to get to the point without the hysteria of the liberal corruption of everything good and true and noble about America, which always accompanies other conservative opinion.

That is until today (Aug. 2). In today’s opinion piece (“To understand Romney, look past the gaffes”), Parker proves even she can be seduced by the fear of the socialist government takeover of just about everything.

My primary objection to Parker is her indulgence in the wholly fabricated issue of freedom of religious belief versus “Obamacare” mandate.

I am sure most readers know the facts. The Affordable Care Act requires businesses that offer insurance plans to include birth control coverage in the plans. Churches are exempt, but not church-related businesses.

The Obama administration offered to allow exemptions and shift the responsibility to insurance companies.

The radical right saw an opportunity to turn a molehill into a mountain and couldn’t pass up the chance.

So the line from the far right, and now Parker it seems, is big evil socialist government trampling on our constitutionally protected religious freedom.

But what freedom are we talking about? Not individual freedom. The only individual freedom being trampled is the employee seeking coverage.

The church claims the freedoms guaranteed to individual citizens in the Constitution extends not only to entities such as the church, but to other commercial entities affiliated with the first entity, and those rights trump the individual’s.

If this is so, can an Islamic businessman affiliated with a mosque claim the same protections to deny his workers a lunch break during Ramadan, since workers would be expected to fast?

Does the affiliated business become, by extension, church property and exempt from applicable taxes?

If rights extend to church/mosque/temple-related businesses, shouldn’t they also extend to any business where the owner claims religious freedom?

In fact, if such rights exist, every employee who goes to work today is now subject to the dictates of his or her employer’s faith.

Clearly this kind of thinking is a greater threat to our freedom than a requirement to cover birth control on an insurance plan.

But it is consistent with other paranoia about the Affordable Care Act.

From “free health care for illegal aliens” to “won’t be able to see your doctor,” from “job killer” to “unconstitutional,” from “death panels” to (wait for it) “the socialist-government takeover of health care,” the radical right has engaged in every form of hysteria, panic and fear over health-care legislation — without ever once offering an alternative.

This “issue” is just more of the same.

Paul Spillman

wholesale flooring sales

St. Francisville

Comments

1) Comment by Scrooge - 13/08/2012

ACA stipulates that up to a certain percentage of premium dollars must be spent on actual medical reasons or be refunded to policyholders, instead of exorbitant executive salaries, perks, etc. thereby saving policyholders money. As EJ Dionne writes, conservatives who have a problem with this are free to return their refund checks to their insurance company and wait for the trickle down.

2) Comment by Whatnow - 11/08/2012

@caucajun, and those illegals are now going to purchase Obamacare. Yeah, right. Someone else is still going to be held accountable for those bills. Will it be the government? Oh, they are going to fine you through your income taxes? What if you don't file, like so many don't? What if you use the emergency room as a doctor's office for a cold and you are on Medicaid? How will that help free up the emergency rooms for emergencies?

3) Comment by Chucky - 11/08/2012

Break your leg in the forest and tell the trees it is your 'right' to health care.

4) Comment by chem - 10/08/2012

jedleland; Great posts. Yes, in other countries, people don't go bankrupt because of medical expenses. They also get better care at a fraction of the cost in the U.S. As others have pointed out, the U.S. is at or near the bottom in health care, but 1st in cost. That's the "free market" capitalist approach, which just does not work.

5) Comment by caucajun - 10/08/2012

It's easy to not pay your bills at a hospital, just leave your wallet at home and learn enough Spanish to say, I am illegal and you have to treat me. They will. Our local hospital just installed super large posters in Spanish telling them they won't be turned away because they can't/won't pay.

6) Comment by jedleland - 10/08/2012

Man I know im overdoing it and beating a dead horse but I just read a story on cnn that makes my point a 4 year old boy Xander Vento just died after he saved a 3 year old girl from drowning he went under her in a pool and held her up above the water while he went under and he lost his life after going to the hospital in a coma. The kid is a hero and braver than any of us and only four and they had to set up a fund for his family to pay his medical bills which are probably thousands and they have to pay even though he died its just inhumane and here in a country that pretends to be christian. Noone in England goes to church any more an no family there would have to beg on tv for strangers to send them money to pay for the medical bills of a 4 year old who died a hero its just not right. Can you imagine you lose your 4 year old son for such a heroic act and you still face bankruptcy and ruin for your whole life because of his heroic act so much for compassion and good christians who are probably more worried with whether rich people get a capital gains tax cut or if gay people want to get married. Hah! Anyway google Xander Vento read his amazing story contribute if you want and ask yourself whats right and wrong in that whole picture although I think I know you can tell by his name and picture hes not a regular white American so he was probably illegal or a welfare cockroach or a thug in training so doesnt matter anyway if they didn’t have insurance they were moochers and don’t need any help at all right?

7) Comment by jedleland - 10/08/2012

if youre ever there ask for dr bowman he even gave my shots before i had to go to N africa how many doctors here still give shots? i asked him one day what he thought of the us system and he said he didnt know much about it but what he had heard sounded 'mad' which is the word for crazy in the uk. i asked him what kind of car he had and he said he rode to work on a bike and had an old peugot which is an economy car like a suzuki or kia or something although I bet he could have had something a bit nicer if he wanted but they were all like that living in regular neighborhoods and living regular lives. he did pretty well i bet but they arent millionaires in mansions like here who expect to be treated like gods and charge $300 for an xray even though the machine is 10 years old and been paid for hundreds of times over he was an md just like doctors in the us. theyre just well educated middle class people doing a good job and he took great care of me

8) Comment by jedleland - 10/08/2012

it was a place called preston road surgery in the town of weymouth england down on the south coast next to the english channel. they had 5 or 6 doctors or gp's as theyre known now dont know if my dr is there any more but you pretty much saw who ever was available just call them up show up for your appointment and youre in get your prescription and go to the pharmacist (they call them chemist) and all prescriptions are capped at about $10 no matter what you get and most are much cheaper than that and its the same drugs we see here for $75 even with good insurance and for hundreds if you have to pay cash. the gp's office was also his surgery room so he had a desk on one side with his papers and books and the exam bed on the other and it wasnt like here where you see a nurse in that little room and then the dr comes in for a few moments and takes off. the nurse takes you in and straight to the dr for whatever you need and he cant go anywhere cause youre in his office and his surgery at the same time. of course there are problems like wait times for specialists (they call them consultants) and for elective stuff but hey we wait for those too try getting an appointment with a neurosurgeon and not waiting weeks in baton rouge and the best part? never a bill and no need to bring money and no checkout receptionist demanding payment even if youre in the hospital for weeks in the ICU i never was myself but i asked my neighbors who were local and they had been to hospitals over the years and never a bill and they were treated just fine dont believe the foxnews ***** about socialized medicine millions of europeans use it and they sure look a lot healthier than us and live longer too and dont have to panic if they have to switch jobs or pay hundreds in premiums and copays and businesses dont have to pay all those premiums either it works great which is why the olympic ceremony had a whole routine about how proud they are of the nhs and they should be

9) Comment by jedleland - 10/08/2012

i lived 140 miles outside london UK for a few years and the medical care was just fine not perfect but you werent paying for perfect. the hospitals were older and you didnt get private rooms and the local clinic was older and the dr didnt drive a jaguar but i never had trouble with an appointment never paid out of pocket and presciptions were much cheaper than here for the same exact drugs go figure. the doctors and nurses were great and all the drugs were up to date but the doctors werent gods just guys working for a living who liked to treat people so they didnt expect mansions or bmw's or worship they jsut went on a did a good job every day. people there when i told them about people going bankrupt or not being able to take the kids in for a visit if they need it or having to choose which prescriptions they could afford or if the tv news had some local kid without insurance get sick and they had to set up an account at a local bank for donations well they couldnt believe it in this by far the richest country in the world. We have st judes which keeps having to have tv fundraisers but lets you know from all over the country that no one ever gets turned away if they cant pay well guess what in tengland every hospital doctor and clinic is like that but its ok cause we have an army bigger than the next 20 countries combined and we give exxon and chevron and albermarle billions each year in subsidies so that makes it ok. they couldnt believe we ran a system as crazy as that but we do and pay more for it than they do by far dang socialists. they asked why they couldnt just give medicare to everyone seeing as its kinda like the nhs in england but like with everything its all about money not health and too many people here worship wealth and wealthy and dont see why they should have the same benefits as those english socialists we'd rather pay much more and get much less smart eh?

10) Comment by krl777 - 10/08/2012

A lot of studies with very low US rank in healthcare just measure preventable mortality. But of course, mortality reflects a lot of other factors. The culture of death in much of the US inflates our mortality rate relative to more peaceful places, independently of the quality of health care narrowly construed. That was a problem with the WHO study. See the critique in the Wall Street Journal article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.html, although they overstate the case since some confounding factors, such as obsesity (we tend to be fat) are not really independent of healthcare But in most studies of absolute overall quality, or quality relative to cost, the US performs below the following countries: France, Italy, Spain, Japan, The Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Israel, Portugal, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Switzerland. In some it falls below Columbia and Chile, which is striking because Colombia has its own culture of death. Note that this list includes not just small, ethnically homogeneous countries like Denmark and Iceland, but also big, continental diverse countries like Australia and Canada. But the claim that we rank number 37 is just an attention getter. What really matters is that we end up ranking below the top ten, while spending two-to-three times as much as any of them. As I said, we suck at heathcare overall, and the current GOP is happy for us to continue to suck.

11) Comment by krl777 - 10/08/2012

For a nuanced discussion of the issues involved in ranking healthcare systems, and reference to a recent (2011) study which puts the US 24th out of 31 OECD countries, see the link to the Forbes article below. Forbes is not exactly a commie rag. http://www.forbes.com/sites/econmatters/2011/02/16/u-s-health-care-almost-as-good-as-chiles/

12) Comment by krl777 - 10/08/2012

DMJ and Chrilter are right to stress that the mediocrity of the American healthcare system is intrinsic to its degree of privatization, and therefore not actually seen as a drawback by the degenerate standards of Fox-Limbaugh and the current GOP. We come out as mediocre because we have among the best healthcare in the world for the elite, including Persian Gulf emirates who come to the Mayo Clinic for treatment, but among the worst in the world for our lower stratum, which includes the uninsured, whose "healthcare" is provided in the ER after they get really sick. It averages out to a level of healthcare outcomes comparable to that of the mid-to-upper stratum of the third-world. Think Chile or Ecuador. This doesn't bother the Fox-Limbaugh-GOP Axis of Inequality because they only care about the elite, not the state of the general population. But it should bother them that our system is so inefficient that we purchase these mediocre outcomes at two-to-three times the cost of healthcare in other advanced democracies, which inflates our deficits and reduces our international competitiveness. But on second thought, we have to wonder whether they even care about that. The ethos of the current American Right seems to hold all forms of sustainability in contempt, not just environmental, but economic sustainability.

13) Comment by DMJ - 10/08/2012

It's not that surprising. The GOP is the pro-corporate party, and I don't even mean that as a pejorative. (to my knowledge, they've never denied this). The status quo, while not good for the national debt or for patients (especially poor ones), it most definitely IS good for private hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and their reps, private insurance companies, medical supply and equipment companies and doctors (financially, at least). Also, the status quo makes it easy to blame medicare and medicaid. It makes it easy to blame the poor and to blame undocumented immigrants. Like I said...it's not that surprising when you think about it. Opposition to the ACA is about more than sticking it to Barack Obama, though that is a major motivation; it's about keeping certain people rich and keeping other certain people in scapegoat status.

14) Comment by Chrilter - 10/08/2012

krl777.......you know what the sad thing is? We do rank #1 in one healthcare category...SPENDING.....so, we spend more than anyone else in the world and we get the 37th ranking healthcare system.....But Republicans want to go back to the status quo.....sounds EXCITING!!

15) Comment by krl777 - 10/08/2012

Here is a discussion in the New England Journal of Medicine of a World Health Organization study in 2000 which showed that the US ranks 37th out of OECD countries on the quality of healthcare: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064. Here is a summary of an OECD report showing the US ranks 30 out of 30 countries in quality of care measured in terms of life expectancy versus cost, and below 22 of them in life expectancy alone: http://www.oecd.org/econom/productivityandlongtermgrowth/46508904.pdf. The following site and others report on a study which shows the US ranks 17 out of 19 among industrialized nations in quality of healthcare: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/comparing-the-usa-uk-and-17-western-countries-efficiency-and-effectiveness-in-reducing-mortality/. The following site reports on results of a study showing that the US is 7 out of a sample of 7 industrialized nations in quality of heathcare: http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/medical-costs-1/. The following site reports on a study which shows that the US is dead last out of a sample of 15 industrialized countries in quality of healthcare. http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2009/0/how_effective_is_american_heal.html. With some Googling efforts, you should be able to get your hands on the 2000 WHO study. The point is, we suck at healthcare relative to the "socialist" countries that the American right loves to vilify. I guess vilifying others is an emotional coping mechanism to avoid acknowledging one's own inferiority.

16) Comment by nimby? - 10/08/2012

quirkmaguirk , as you have said many who can afford choose not to and abuse the emergency room . if they elect not to purchase insurance and show up at an E R , will they be denied service , taken to jail and/or fined additionally ? case workers maxed , law enforcement already stretched , hundreds of outstanding bench warrants , a backlog of court cases . from a logical standpoint will it be a priority to go after these individuals ? will it be cost effective to pursue these cases ?

17) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 10/08/2012

@nimby?: If they are to poor to purchase insurance then they would already have qualified for a subsidy. If they have opted to not purchase insurance then they will be fined. If you walk into an emergency room it is normal for them to get your ID/ information before admitting you.

18) Comment by The_Host - 10/08/2012

Please list the 34 countries ahead of us that have better healthcare. I've heard that number a lot but never seen the list of the countries for some reason. I bet a majority of liberals can't even name 34 countries! FYI- Massachusetts is not a country it is a state which the voters voted for the health plan they have now it wasn't jammed down their throats in the middle of the night. Why is it we can have all these last minute laws passed in no time in the middle of the night but they can't seem to come up with a simple term limits law to pass that at anytime?

19) Comment by nimby? - 09/08/2012

quirkmaguirk , precisely , if they cannot pay the fine what is the enforcement , jail , more fines ? and once again E R wonders where to send the bill . almost a catch-22 ...

20) Comment by krl777 - 09/08/2012

Of course the ACA is a bad health care plan. What do you expect -- it's a REPUBLICAN plan, born of the conservative Heritage Foundation, implemented by Republican Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, and advanced by Republicans right up until the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. The only worse health care plan is the one currently advanced by Republicans, which is to do nothing (except some tort reform, which will have little effect.) Doing nothing will assure that the United States of American continues to rank somewhere around 35th in health care outcomes among advanced industrial countries. USA! USA! We're number 35!! We're number 35!! Incidentally, that's about where we rank in education. Why do Republicans want us to be number 35? Do they hate America?

21) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 09/08/2012

@nimbly: I should think that when they , the uninsured, go for medical treatment they would practically be turning themselves in, would they not?

22) Comment by nimby? - 09/08/2012

" God made all men equal , he just made some more equal than others " , Richard Penniman ....

23) Comment by chem - 09/08/2012

Yea, I know. I'm a left-wing, socialist, atheistic commie, but I think a single payer plan is the only good plan for health care. Canada, Europe, and other countries, such as Japan have far superior health care than the U.S. But no, we can't do that because we are all pioneer types that take care of ourselves. Never mind that we are all dependent on one another in some form or another. The U.S. has the mindset that we are all self-made men, independent, pulling individual selves up by our individual boot straps.

24) Comment by nimby? - 09/08/2012

quirkmaguirk , will it be cost effective to go after those breaking the law , will they just be ignored ? if they are fined and cannot afford the fine , who pays ? it will be too easy to simply skirt the law and continue to abuse the E R . as has been said we cannot legislate responsibility ...

25) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 09/08/2012

@nimby?: No, I do not think it is wrong to ask, or even expect, people to take care of their own well being. Right now though we have people that can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it, instead using the emergency rooms as primary care facilities and leaving the taxpayers with the bill. The ACA will provide incentive, through fines, to those people that can afford insurance so that when they do go to the doctor it is not us, the tax payers, being left to foot the bill. We already have free healthcare for every American that is paid for with tax money, but it is because people are abusing the system we have set up for how our emergency rooms operate. The ACA, in theory, will reduce the burden of the tax payers on the healthcare system. Also, on social security and welfare fraud: The people doing the most damage to those programs are corrupt doctors and groups people that have set up elaborate scams, not the poor people that rely on the small amount of money they receive.

26) Comment by nimby? - 09/08/2012

quirkmaguirk , I hope you're right . the problem as I see it ; the programs designed with the best of intentions are the most easily corruptible . they are nearly impossible to police . estimates of fraud within social services nearly 30 percent . their are those taking without need while others doing without . it is an emotional tug of war where heated exchanges are the norm . I agree everyone needs health coverage . they also need an education , a job , to be responsible adults/parents contributing equally to a better society for all . as I've suggested over and over why not consider workfare , such as the CCC back in the 30's , combining medical , educational benefits with employment , job training . is it wrong to ask those able to contribute to their own well being , to take care of their own ?

27) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 09/08/2012

@chem: I find it funny (not in a laughing way) that it is the baby eating atheists that push so strongly for human rights, not just for the wealthy, but for all humans on this planet. While the religious right seems to be fine with letting the poor die from preventable causes, even in one of the richest countries of the planet.

28) Comment by chem - 09/08/2012

A charter school, here in Louisiana, the Delhi Charter School, is requiring students to take a pregnancy test. If they don't they have to quit school, and if they test positive, they have to quit school. How outrageous is that? And this school is publicly funded. Of course, only the female is affected in this Draconian edict. What about the males? And people are worried that some religious order has to make contraception available to employees through health insurance.

29) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 09/08/2012

More patients: The number of patients will not change, the only thing that will change is where people go for their healthcare needs. Fewer doctors: All doctors and future doctors (med school students) that I personally know are for the ACA (even the "conservative" ones). The only source I have seen claiming there will be fewer doctors is Fox. Slow reimbursement: Because people are required to purchase insurance from private providers I don't see how this would be a problem. If doctors do not accept your policy, then switch providers. Improve coverage for all: emergency rooms should be more accessible, plus regulations placed on the insurance providers that protect us, the consumers. The "irresponsible": Many of the uninsured can afford insurance, but they choose to spend their money in other ways. By imposing a fine, tax, on those that can afford it but choose not to will provide an incentive for them to purchase coverage on their own. Hope this helps.

30) Comment by nimby? - 09/08/2012

fewer are entering the medical field . doctors are "retiring" early , going into research fields rather than medical practice , being retained for private service , insurance companies will be covering more patients , as you said . hence more will be seeing fewer , simple math . and the taxpayer , via the government , will continue to pay ....

31) Comment by DMJ - 09/08/2012

"more patients...fewer doctors" Hmm....I didn't realize the ACA had the ability to add or subtract people from existence. There aren't "more patients" due to the ACA; there are just more INSURED patients. And "fewer doctors"?? I have no idea where you got that.... And if people can't afford insurance, how are they going to afford coming out of pocket for emergency room visits? Answer: they can't...so they don't pay. We do- the insured and the taxpayer via the government. Please explain "more patients, fewer doctors."

32) Comment by nimby? - 09/08/2012

quirkmaguirk , will agree with your evaluation of most E R's . been asking the same questions since the ACA came out , maybe you can answer them . more patients , fewer doctors , denial of coverage because of slow reimburses , how is this going to improve coverage for all , besides those provided waivers/options ? how are the "irresponsible" all of a sudden going to be able to afford insurance , or the fine if they so choose ?

33) Comment by chem - 09/08/2012

Well DDT, um sorry, DDD, your research was probably listening to Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. As has been pointed out by others, no one is forcing anyone to use contraception or get an abortion. What part of that don't you and the others understand? And again, if a church is engaged in commerce, they have to abide by all the rules that other businesses must obey. So you are saying that a hospital run by the catholic church can, because of the churches belief, impose their will on people who work there that do not agree with the church's stance on contraception? I suppose if a religious cult wants to commit human sacrifice, even if the participants are willing, that would be OK. Their belief trumps homicide laws in this country? And for those who think that health care is not a right of every person on this planet, you should be ashamed of yourself to think that a persons station in life is all that matters whether or not they can get health care. How arrogant and self-serving.

34) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 09/08/2012

@nimby?: When was the last time you went to an emergency room? I had to take my brother to one a few months ago in the middle of the night. We had to wait hours to be seen (we both have very good insurance), as he writhed in pain, because the waiting room was full of people that needed to see a doctor but couldn't afford a primary care physician. My point is, we are already providing healthcare to the "irresponsible" (your wording), the ACA should improve overall care because it will make the "irresponsible" purchase insurance, which will make primary care more affordable for them and hopefully clear out the emergency rooms of the people that are not in an emergency.

35) Comment by nimby? - 09/08/2012

Chucky , seems as it has become a "right" for the responsible to care/provide for the irresponsible . watch your local news at 10 , see how this is working ...

36) Comment by Chucky - 09/08/2012

Just when did health care become a 'right' and not a charity ? If the community can afford to take care of the sick and old then I think they should(Ethics/Morality) but by donations and voluntary work not by government mandate. So answer my question Maelstrom and it is only one, When?

37) Comment by DDD - 09/08/2012

Dear DMJ: I wrote the other letter that appeared in the today's opinion section. I have been called a "bigot", a "right wing crazy", "a zealot" and now there is the implication of being "hysterical". I think it's interesting because I refrained from name calling in my letter. Believe me, I know a few names that I could have used. I think civil discussion is superior to name calling any day of the week. I carefully researched every word I wrote and I am not the only one who feels the way that I do. It's a shame that folks attack character, when issues are discussed. How quickly we are to stereotype people by their opinions. I wish you "passion for your beliefs" beyond name calling.

38) Comment by nimby? - 09/08/2012

also , universal coverage should be as inferred , for all ; no waivers , no options , yet ...

39) Comment by nimby? - 09/08/2012

I've probably read more of the document than most members of either house . it is a typical government document , written by lawyers , lotta double speak . while most is understandable some parts are very confusing , seeming to leave holes for variance . I consider myself fairly literate , yet some passages I had to read a few times to get the true statement . some portions made no sense at all . I can understand how this would intimidate the common man . I've always wondered in writing these pieces a language was used that is foreign to most ....

40) Comment by DMJ - 09/08/2012

"ACA criticisms just hysterical" - Very appropriate title considering the other letter on this issue that was printed today.

41) Comment by nimby? - 09/08/2012

I'm confused ; more patients , fewer doctors , services provided without co-payment , providers denying coverage because of slow payment , subsidies provided for those who say they can't afford . please explain .

42) Comment by chem - 09/08/2012

When a religious cult decides to engage in commerce, they must adhere to all of the laws that every other business must obey. In my opinion, religious organizations should be taxed on their holdings just like everyone else. Why, just because they are a religious institution, should they not pay taxes? If they offer health insurance, they have to follow the same rules -- period. And its good to see that the right-wing-wacko-squad is out in full force. Can't see your doctor, socialist take-over, communism, loss of freedom -- all of the right-wing scare tactics. Unfortunately for their deluded opinions, the facts show quite the opposite. As SuzanneMS pointed out, it is a "capitalist" take- over of health care. The insurance companies will see a boom business because of the ACA. I was quite disappointed that a single payer plan, like what is in Canada, Great Britain, and other enlightened European countries, what not instituted in this country. Some things, like health care, are too important to leave to "free markets."

43) Comment by DMJ - 09/08/2012

According to Republicans....the freedom to have birth control covered by your insurance is not a freedom at all......but the freedom to deny your employees (regardless of their own personal beliefs) birth control coverage under their insurance is OK. This may be the dumbest fake controversy of the past 3 years...and that's a very long list. Great letter, as always, Paul.

44) Comment by gary - 09/08/2012

Well, I figured the movers and shakers of the comment crowd (which is great - the comments that is) would be replying to Mr. Spillmans letter - forget that folks - we need to be able to make comments about the cover up of the salt dome leak (which DNR knew about since Jan of 2011) and the sudden resigning of the head of DNR - one Mr. Scott Angele - neither article referenced the other. I believe those two articles would be popping with some nice comments - what about it Advocate admins?

45) Comment by Attila - 09/08/2012

This is just another of Spillman's libertard rants. He has never met a tax or social program that he didn't like...especially if someone else was paying for it. I would love to be a fly on the wall when Spillman finds out that because BHO dumped 40 million more people into the private health care system, he cannot get his needed doctor appointment in a reasonable time frame....or when he needs a private hospital bed that is not available because the hospitals are at capacity due to the influx of all of the newly "insured". More and more doctors are leaving their traditional practices to go into what is known as Concierge practice where a patient pays a fee up front and has 24/7 access to the doctor. The down side is that a doctor who gives up his traditional practice also severely limits the number of patients he/she will see. Thanks Barack.

46) Comment by Chucky - 09/08/2012

“But what freedom are we talking about? “ Organizations are made up of individuals, so yes we are talking of individual rights. “Does the affiliated business become, by extension, church property and exempt from applicable taxes?” No “If rights extend to church/mosque/temple-related businesses, shouldn’t they also extend to any business where the owner claims religious freedom?” Yes “…. deny his workers a lunch break during Ramadan, since workers would be expected to fast?”...... No, they can eat or not on break. I think those are the four questions asked.

47) Comment by SuzanneMS - 09/08/2012

"Socialist takeover?" You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word. The ACA mandates that we purchase, either individually or through our employers, health insurance from private health insurance companies. One more time -- private health insurance companies. Private. Get it? Private. If it's a takeover of any kind, it's a capitalist takeover. A socialist takeover would have been a single payer national health insurance paid for with tax dollars. The only "socialist" aspect was the expansion of Medicaid, and that was only to a very small minority of the population.

48) Comment by [e-mail] - 09/08/2012

Spillman, I believe, protests too much. Anyone who doesn't see Obamacare as a socialist takeover must be counting on being one of those that plan to administer the rest of us.

49) Comment by Whatnow - 09/08/2012

@ScotB, I agree. More loss of freedom with dictatorial mandates. Little by little, inch by inch, until people wake up and ask "What happened?"

50) Comment by Bighug - 09/08/2012

Whether the government should require businesses to provide health insurance to employees, including birth control coverage which is more about pleasure than health, isn't the point. The law pertains to businesses, not to churches. Any church that doesn't wish to abide by those laws should just take care of religion and leave business operations to those who will follow the law. Mr. Spillman is right-on.

51) Comment by Maelstrom - 09/08/2012

yeah, what's next? They might passing overtime laws or prevent parents from sending their 8 year olds to work. They might even establish a minimum wage or worker safety rules. Still would like to see someone answer Spillman's questions.

52) Comment by ScotB - 08/08/2012

Did you ever wonder how it became an employer's responsibility to pay for employees' health insurance? They don't pay for their car insurance, even though most need a car to get to work. Employers provided this as a perk to be competitive versus other employers, just like they provide monthly parking for downtown employees. What is different is that the government is now telling employers they must provide this insurance coverage for employees. The media has covered the individual mandate and there has been much discussion about government overstepping its bounds by requiring the individual purchase, but there has been little discussion about requiring employers to purchase health insurance for employees. What's next? Employer have to provide life insurance, car insurance, groceries? Why limit it to health insurance? If the government can force employers to buy a product for employees, it can force them to buy anything it wants. "Those who sacrifice liberty for secuity deserve neither." - Ben Franklin (paraphrased).

53) Comment by Maelstrom - 08/08/2012

I wait to see if anybody actually attempts to answer the questions in your letter. I like to see a reasoned response to your letter, if possible.

54) Comment by 8point6 - 08/08/2012

Hey, paul. Stick to selling flooring. Yeah, yeah. My "progressive" friends will be giving you large "thumbs up" for this letter.