The Locally Owned Voice of the Capital Region

With Obamacare, it’s nuns, not employees, losing their rights

Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Text Size: A | A

With Obamacare, it’s nuns, not employees, losing their rights

I was amused somewhat by Frank Elfland’s Jan. 5 letter, “Don’t yield to Catholics on contraception,” as he tried to argue that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to side with the nuns on their objection to contraceptive coverage in their insurance was, as he called it, “hogwash.”

He stated that it was an example of a Catholic predilection of “forcing others to accept their religious practices,” and that the nuns can avoid the parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that offend them by hiring only Catholics.

Well, first off, hiring only Catholics is out of the question for the nuns, as that is discrimination against anyone who is not Catholic and is illegal. But more importantly, Mr. Elfland does not understand the impact of the ACA on the nuns’ freedom.

He says that their trying to avoid the law of the ACA would be similar to Muslim or Jewish employers telling their employees that they cannot bring BLTs [bacon lettuce and tomato] or ham sandwiches to work. But that is actually the opposite of what is happening. The impact of the ACA on the nuns is similar to telling Jewish or Muslim employers that they must provide BLTs and ham sandwiches to their employees, even though it is against their religion to eat or touch pork.

The nuns are not forcing their beliefs on others. Anyone who works for them retains the liberty to buy and use contraception or get an abortion. They simply will not find that their insurance pays for it for them. If that is not an acceptable work situation, then perhaps working for a Catholic employer is not a good option.

If one wants to eat ham for lunch, you can work for a Jewish deli, but don’t expect the deli to provide the ham for you free of charge. Everyone has the liberty to live, believe and act as he or she chooses.

What the ACA does is force private companies into a situation where they are required to give their employees something they find contrary to their beliefs.

The nuns were the ones losing their religious liberty, not the employees.

Dave Hart

Latham

Stop making honest gun owners criminals

I’ve read several articles on this NY SAFE Act, all of it very negative toward the honest gun owner.

As an honest gun owner who enjoys target shooting, trap shooting and hunting, I see no reason why lawmakers and the press and some of our political leaders in this state need to treat us as potential criminals. We don’t break any laws, we pay our taxes; yet what we have [to] say falls on deaf ears.

What Adam Lanza did in Sandy Hook was a horrible thing, but first his mother hid his mental problems; she paid the ultimate price. He didn’t use an AR-15 but two handguns.

Why was the guy in Webster [N.Y.] out of jail after 17 years for killing his grandmother with a hammer? Why are prisons being closed and felons being released into the general public to commit more crimes? Why were mental institutions closed and the patients released into the general public with no clue how to take care of themselves?

It seems the people we’ve elected can’t seem [to] come up with any reasonable way to deal with the real criminals and the mentally ill.

No one I know hunts deer with an AR-15, but might want to hunt coyote with one. So what difference is three rounds in the clip and a pistol grip in the end? It’s still just a semiautomatic rifle in the hands of an honest citizen — who more than likely has some kind of training for recreational purpose only.

So in the end, I believe the press, our political leaders and lawmakers actually need to tell the whole story and not just half the truth. And the NY SAFE Act needs to be done away with and criminals treated the way they treated their victims.

Maybe chain gangs might be a better criminal reform and the mental health care system restructured.

Kevin P. O’Shell

Sharon Springs

Raise jury duty pay in step with minimum wage

I would like legislation passed to raise the daily jury fee from $40 to a more reasonable amount. This same fee schedule is paid in the federal court system.

If average wages in New York are $935 per week, that’s $187 per day. I think this is an overlooked hardship imposed by our society.

I realize it is a civil obligation but compensation should still be reasonable. Even at the minimum wage, the jury fee should be raised to at least $64 per day. And if this amount is the amount chosen, then the legislation should tie the fee to the minimum wage to keep it in balance.

David Buckbee

Rexford

Letters Policy

The Gazette wants your opinions on public issues.

There is no strict word limit, though letters under 200 words are preferred.

All letters are subject to editing for length, style and fairness, and we will run no more than one letter per month from the same writer.

Please include your signature, address and day phone for verification.

For information on how to send, see bottom of this page.

 

comments

January 7, 2014
7:19 a.m.
-1 votes
wmarincic says...

My first dealing with my insurance after Obamacare. I had a biopsi. I paid my copay and now I get two bills totaling over $1100 for out of pocket expenses. Even though they are $1100 in bills my letter from the insurance company said I have $338 of my $2500 out of pocket. At this rate I will pay $10,000 out of pocket to satisfy my $2500 out of pocket expenses. Obamacare sucks and so does obama and anyone that voted for that idiot.

January 7, 2014
6:10 p.m.
+0 votes
Phils2008 says...

wmarincic. Hope the test was negative. This will hit those idiots eventually but seeing De Blasio elected Mayor leads me to believe the stupid still outnumber the sane and somehow the DNC will effectively blame the Republicans. No way the MSM will allow the Democrats to take the fall for a plan they conceived, designed and pushed through congress. It's their job to see nothing negative touches the Democrats. Mark my words, if lefties start paying more, your taxes will be raised to give them an additional subsidy.

January 7, 2014
6:44 p.m.
-1 votes
ChuckD says...

But gosh, you never say whether the policy that screwed you was the one you'd been carrying, or one you got through the ACA. I can't help thinking that if you'd gone through the insurance market for that policy we'd all have had the pleasure of your rants about that experience, and so far nothing. So which was it?

January 8, 2014
8:35 a.m.
+0 votes
wmarincic says...

It was a policy through my employer that had to change to a $5000 out of pocket expense plus a $500 deductible before the policy kicks in. We had to do it to keep our insurance affordable for the whole company. As was told by our insurance broker, we are now supporting those without insurance due to the ACA.

January 9, 2014
7:10 p.m.
-1 votes
Phils2008 says...

I could blather on and on about my daughters policy that will cost her $300/ month plus a huge deductible on a $20k income. Of course she is not eligible for any subsidies. I was tempted to re-enter her data and make her a minority to she how much she'd get. She is just one of the many swarming to the ACA for health care. Not because she didn't have any but because you liberals passed the dumbest law in history that got her policy canceled. Tell us chuck, how many of the signers you love citing had insurance before you forced your plan on them? You constantly made up
a fluctuating number of uninsured to push this out. How about you start citing all the people that never had insurance who signed up? Being a committed lefty means you don't really care about or even understand what facts are, but the reality is your Messiah has screwed us all. Now your union lackeys are squawking. Why is that Chucky? Explain why those committed lefties dont like the ACA? My daughter wont be buying a new car now and we'll just keep patching the old one. Thats the reality (not the fantasy you live in) of the ACA on the economy.

January 10, 2014
12:09 a.m.
+1 votes
ChuckD says...

And so you did blather...
Here's one thing 'we liberals' don't tend to do, paint with broad brushes. Which explains why the Democratic Party (which I'm not a member of) is inclusive, and the Republicans...well not so much.
.
I'm pretty confident that whatever anyone posts in rebuttal to your (both) blather, you'll imagine some kind of weird conspiracy. Responding is futile except to try to balance the noise. And I'm pretty confident a source like Harvard University probably causes all manner of puckering and fear, but for all others here's some data compiled by Theda Skocpol, professor of government and sociology at Harvard University and director of the Scholars Strategy Network that shows the effect of GOP monkey-wrenching of the process.
http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/n...
.
You're like the drunk relative who shows up at the family party, trashes the house and guests, and then b!tches about what an awful party it was. Cya in 2016!

January 10, 2014
9:11 p.m.
-1 votes
wmarincic says...

Cya in 2014

 

columnists & blogs


Log into Dailygazette.com

Forgot Password?

Subscribe

Username:
Password: