Trump wants to end rule saying religious providers have to inform patients of other options. Bad?

MayCaesar

I do not think anyone should be obliged to inform their clients of other people's services. Imagine if, every time Coca-Cola sold a drink, it had to state on the bottle, "You can also buy drinks from our competitors, such as Pepsi". This does not sound reasonable to me.

Special treatment of religious providers is also a problem. If the rule applies to the religious providers, then it should also apply to the non-religious ones. Ending its one-sided version that is present now seems to be the right thing to do.

YeshuaBought

MayCaesar said:

I do not think anyone should be obliged to inform their clients of other people's services. Imagine if, every time Coca-Cola sold a drink, it had to state on the bottle, "You can also buy drinks from our competitors, such as Pepsi". This does not sound reasonable to me.

Special treatment of religious providers is also a problem. If the rule applies to the religious providers, then it should also apply to the non-religious ones. Ending its one-sided version that is present now seems to be the right thing to do.

Religious doctors don't have the right to accept public funds, and force religion on their patients. If we were discussing privatetly funded healthcare providers, THEN I would agree with you.

MayCaesar

@YeshuaBought

I was not aware we were talking about publicly funded religious doctors: is there even such a thing in the US? If so, that is absolutely unacceptable, albeit the solution, again, would be not to have a law forcing them to inform patients of other options, but to do away with the public funding.