[
{
"name": "Related Stories / Support Us Combo",
"component": "12017627",
"insertPoint": "4",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "6"
},
{
"name": "Air - Billboard - Inline Content",
"component": "12017623",
"insertPoint": "2/3",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "7"
},
{
"name": "Air - MediumRectangle - Inline Content - Mobile Display Size 2",
"component": "12017624",
"insertPoint": "12",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "12"
},{
"name": "Air - MediumRectangle - Inline Content - Mobile Display Size 2",
"component": "12017624",
"insertPoint": "4th",
"startingPoint": "16",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "12"
}
,{
"name": "RevContent - In Article",
"component": "13027957",
"insertPoint": "3/5",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "5"
}
]
Our post about a ruling that will allow three Colorado companies to
opt out of Obamacare's contraceptive care mandate because their owner is an evangelical Christian prompted a strongly divided debate about the pros and cons of the decision. Here's a post by someone who feels the mandate is dubious for all firms, no matter the beliefs of their owners.
See also: If You Think These Three Colorado Companies Will Cover Contraceptive Care, Think Again
mtnrunner2 writes:
The contraception mandate is a bad idea anyway. The purpose of insurance should be to cover catastrophic care, not routine expenses, or to give people the illusion that they are saving money by having insurance. The purpose should be to pay for unexpected things that are way beyond your means. This is the equivalent of car insurance covering oil changes.
Send your story tips to the author, Michael Roberts.
For more memorable takes, visit our Comment of the Day archive.
