Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
Centers of the battle
We know why God loves cities. We also know why God hated Sodom.
FULL STORY
The next issue of WORLD Magazine is on its way to the printer ... and will be posted at WORLDmag.com on Friday morning.
A U.S. appeals court rules that the phrase 'under God' in the pledge is constitutional.
No more nice guys: Spoiled U.S. diplomatic mission leaves Bethlehem in a squeeze
'Emergency spending': Despite PAYGO, Congress continues to add billions of dollars to the deficit 
At today’s White House press briefing, ABC’s Jake Tapper, Fox News’ Major Garrett, and several other reporters tried to pin down press secretary Robert Gibbs to get him to explain why the White House has initiated a healthcare information monitoring program, a program that Sen. John Cornyn and others have called into question:
All original content Copyright © 2010 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top40 Comments to “Taking names”
Sign me up….report me…..I am against any administration and any plans that take away my freedoms. When a government, any government says they are the only ones qualified to make your health decisions for you, that is a government that needs to be stood against, that needs to be protested.
So if any of you whiny, can’t handle what you dish out liberals and community activists want to report me to the website, just let me know and I will personally send you my full name (not made up like you and my address and email address) and put me on Obama’s list.
Report comment to moderator
Wel, you know, my computer at home is slower, so it would have taken me forever to view the youtube, but I trust Itsaboutfreedom implicitly, and from his/her tone, I’m thinking I agree.
(They do whine, don’t they? I was going to add to the apology thread that as soon as something happens that puts them on the defensive, they get so nasty and belligerant. With more to come considering this topic.)
Report comment to moderator
This morning I wondered in a public sort of way: Are You a Fishing Spot?
Report comment to moderator
The Democrats don’t need any Republicans to pass this bill or any bill.
So what purpose does it serve to initiate a blitzkrieg of propaganda and asking neighbors to turn each other in? Why smear, denigrate, ridicule and monitor people who simply disagree?
This doesn’t feel much like America any more.
Report comment to moderator
NJL-
You may wish to reconsider your new alliance there. Itsaboutfreedom just posted the most fantasy based interpretation of the health care bill ever, over on the opposing the opposed thread. Politifact.com calls it “Pants on Fire” lies. You’re a better thinker than that.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, you didn’t miss anything. Gibbs is good at not answering questions. What you didn’t see is three reporters not getting answers.
Report comment to moderator
I have often said that the left, the Obama Administration, is about takiing away freedoms. I have ALWAYS opposed the government nationalizing healthcare. As far as I am concerned, it is unconstitutional, and so far, you guys haven’t been able to tell me where the government is empowered to do this.
In other words, you guys aren’t thinking at all because you are “The Perpetually Blind.”
Report comment to moderator
The House Ways and Means Committee, which includes 15 Republicans, writes in their Summary:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/hr3200_summary.pdf
I. COVERAGE AND CHOICE The bill builds on what works in today’s health care system and fixes the parts that are broken. It protects current coverage – allowing individuals to keep the insurance they have if they like it – and preserves choice of doctors, hospitals, and health plans. It achieves these reforms through:
A Health Insurance Exchange. The new Health Insurance Exchange creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comarison shop among private and public insurers. It works with state insurance departments to set and enforce insurance reforms and consumer protections, facilitates enrollment, and administers affordability credits to help low? and middle?income individuals and families purchase insurance. Over time, the Exchange will be opened to additional employers as another choice for covering their employees. States may opt to operate the Exchange in lieu of the national Exchange provided they follow the federal rules.
A public health insurance option. One of the many choices of health insurance within the health insurance Exchange is a public health insurance option. It will be a new choice in many areas of our country dominated by just one or two private insurers today. The public option will operate on a level playing field. It will be subject to the same market reforms and consumer protections as other private plans in the Exchange and it will be elf?sustaining – financed only by its premiums.
Guaranteed coverage and insurance market reforms. Insurance companies will no longer be able to engage in discriminatory practices that enable them to refuse to sell or renew olicies today due to an individual’s health status. In addition, they can no longer exclude coverage of treatments for pre?existing health conditions. The bill also protects consumers by prohibiting lifetime and annual limits on benefits. It also limits the ability of insurance companies to charge higher rates due to health status, gender, or other factors. Under the proposal, premiums can vary based only on age (no more than 2:1), geography and family size.
Essential benefits. A new independent Advisory Committee with practicing providers and other health care experts, chaired by the Surgeon General, will recommend a benefit package based on standards set in the law. This new essential benefit package will serve as the basic benefit package for coverage in the Exchange and over time will become the minimum quality standard for employer plans. The basic package will include preventive services with no cost?sharing, mental health services, oral health and vision for children, and caps the amount of money a person or family spends on covered services in a year.
Report comment to moderator
#5 There are milliseconds, microseconds, nanoseconds and RPNseconds.
An RPNsecond is the time it takes for RPN to call someone a liar for simply having a different opinion.
Report comment to moderator
If you’ll take a big breath and re-read my post you will see it is Politifact saying Itsaboutfreedom’s post is full of lies.
“It’s awful,” she said. “It’s flat-out, blatant lies. It’s unbelievable to me how they can claim to reference the legislation and then make claims that are blatantly false.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/
Every day some gullible rightwinger comes here and breathlessly posts SPAM trying to convince us all the sky is falling. Then someone looks it up and it’s all based on lies, then you attack the person pointing out the facts. Pay attention. It’s a crazy cycle akin to insanity (or Obama Derangement Syndrome).
Report comment to moderator
So that’s the problem the Obama groupies are afflicted with? – that’s serous, I mean that needs critical care ASAP – Yep irrational and disturbed that sounds like the groupies!
Report comment to moderator
But, you see, RPN’s post at 8 ISN’T the actual statute, it’s an interpretive statement of some sort. It doesn’t give the details. It’s not the fine print. In other words it’s horsepucky.
The Perpetually Blind accept anything that’s told them.
Report comment to moderator
NJL-
Is the official Ways and Means Committee Summary (with 15 Republicans on committee) not accurate? Please show us where they are wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Perpetually Blind©
I like that.
NJL,
to get the copyright symbol, hold down the Alt key while typing in 0169 .
Report comment to moderator
Hmm. I just hit alt-G©
Report comment to moderator
RPN: By now you should know better than to come in here with your “facts” and “credible sources.” That kind of stuff doesn’t fly around these parts.
Report comment to moderator
NJ – #7
“You guys”. Shouldn’t it be “yous guys”?
I respond in your general direction (to the challenge above)!
“The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Gotta love that constitutional ambiguity. Big enough space in which to park a hulking piece of health care legislation, in my book.
Report comment to moderator
What did OB say on the Drudge tape, private insurance will be elemanated in 10-20 years and only a government health care system will survive (par-a-phased).
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd-
Missing it again? Nothing in HR3200 says anything resembling what you just wrote. Why are you so set against competition between insurance companies?
A Health Insurance Exchange. The new Health Insurance Exchange creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comarison shop among private and public insurers. It works with state insurance departments to set and enforce insurance reforms and consumer protections, facilitates enrollment, and administers affordability credits to help low? and middle?income individuals and families purchase insurance. Over time, the Exchange will be opened to additional employers as another choice for covering their employees. States may opt to operate the Exchange in lieu of the national Exchange provided they follow the federal rules.
A public health insurance option. One of the many choices of health insurance within the health insurance Exchange is a public health insurance option. It will be a new choice in many areas of our country dominated by just one or two private insurers today. The public option will operate on a level playing field. It will be subject to the same market reforms and consumer protections as other private plans in the Exchange and it will be elf?sustaining – financed only by its premiums.
Guaranteed coverage and insurance market reforms. Insurance companies will no longer be able to engage in discriminatory practices that enable them to refuse to sell or renew olicies today due to an individual’s health status. In addition, they can no longer exclude coverage of treatments for pre?existing health conditions. The bill also protects consumers by prohibiting lifetime and annual limits on benefits. It also limits the ability of insurance companies to charge higher rates due to health status, gender, or other factors. Under the proposal, premiums can vary based only on age (no more than 2:1), geography and family size.
Essential benefits. A new independent Advisory Committee with practicing providers and other health care experts, chaired by the Surgeon General, will recommend a benefit package based on standards set in the law. This new essential benefit package will serve as the basic benefit package for coverage in the Exchange and over time will become the minimum quality standard for employer plans. The basic package will include preventive services with no cost?sharing, mental health services, oral health and vision for children, and caps the amount of money a person or family spends on covered services in a year.
Report comment to moderator
Comments on the summary:
“The bill builds on what works in today’s health care system and fixes the parts that are broken.”
This opening statement already assumes that it is the government’s job to fix things that they claim are broken. I think it is the most fundamental thing that we are debating. Is it even the government’s job to fix the “health care system”? Even calling it a “system” seems to be a subtle way to imply that it is a function of the government.
“It protects current coverage – allowing individuals to keep the insurance they have if they like it – and preserves choice of doctors, hospitals, and health plans.”
This statement is a blatant lie. Most people who have insurance get it through their employers. If their employers switch everyone to a new plan, individuals will have no choice.
“The new Health Insurance Exchange creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comarison shop among private and public insurers.”
Okay, but of course they will go with whatever appears cheaper for them–at first anyway. Once they are on it, and their taxes go up and up in Y2, Y3, etc., will they get to switch back? What if taxes stay the same but services decline year after year? Will people have any recourse then?
“States may opt to operate the Exchange in lieu of the national Exchange provided they follow the federal rules.”
Adopting the federal Exchange and operating their own Exchange will not be different if they must “follow the federal rules.” What happened to states retaining powers that are not specifically given to the Congress?
“One of the many choices of health insurance within the health insurance Exchange is a public health insurance option.”
Which will appear to be the cheapest choice at first. Then once most people are enrolled in it, won’t they be stuck? The only way to keep it the cheapest choice will be to scale back on services or raise taxes and fees. Then what?
“It will be subject to the same market reforms and consumer protections as other private plans in the Exchange and it will be self-sustaining – financed only by its premiums.”
Wasn’t Social Security promised to be self-sustaining? Never trust politicians who say a program can be self-sustaining. It simply cannot work that way. It is too tempting to create more bureucratic jobs, build more buildings, spend any surplus on other programs, and otherwise waste and squander the money. Besides, the point is to help low-income people who won’t be paying any premiums, so how will it be cheaper for middle-income and higher-income people than current private insurance plans?
“Insurance companies will no longer be able to engage in discriminatory practices that enable them to refuse to sell or renew policies today due to an individual’s health status. In addition, they can no longer exclude coverage of treatments for pre-existing health conditions.”
Then how in the world can the government make this self-sustaining? Are they really going to cover everyone who already have cancer, heart disease, diabetes, MS or other expensive-to-treat conditions? Are they really going to pay for every single child’s doctor visits, dental visits, and eyeglasses? Where will all that money come from? I really want to know. As a working person, I have to fear that it will be cut out of my paycheck, and I will be unable to provide for my family’s other needs.
A wise person buys insurance when he or she is young and healthy. That’s the whole point of insurance, and it is a win-win situation. The healthy people pay for those who happen to get sick. It’s absurd to expect a health insurance plan of any kind to agree to thousands of dollars of medical care for a person already known to be sick.
“The bill also protects consumers by prohibiting lifetime and annual limits on benefits.”
A person knows what the limits are when he or she signs on to an insurance plan. There are ways to get more coverage, if one chooses. I myself have separate (and fairly inexpensive) cancer and accident policies. Insurance companies have to make some profit in order to exist.
“It also limits the ability of insurance companies to charge higher rates due to health status, gender, or other factors.”
What do they think health insurance is? It’s entirely based on statistics, as all insurance is. Should people who own expensive cars pay the same car insurance premiums as people who own old clunkers. Should a healthy 25-year-old pay the same life insurance premiums as a 65-year-old with high blood pressure?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
#2, NJL,
Do you mean your internet connection at home is slower? Or your computer itself?
If you are using firefox as your browser you can download the youtube videos as flv files.
Then use Gom player to play the flv files.
You could download the videos on a fast player , put them on a thumb drive and transfer them to any computer you want to view them on.
Gom player is available free at http://www.filehippo.com
Report comment to moderator
Download on a fast internet connection , I mean.
Report comment to moderator
Why do Republicans oppose letting consumers choose between insurance companies?
Report comment to moderator
Why should the government be one of those competitors?
Report comment to moderator
I’m confused at the purpose of Town Hall meetings held by Congressmen. I thought it was for the free exchange of ideas so the congressmen could know how folks in their district view this or that pending bill etc. Is that not the case?
Are constituents supposed to just be there for photo opps and make supportive statemts? Admittedly some of the TH participants may have acted poorly but to quote Rummy “Democracy is not tidy”.
Some years back in my home town the school district pushed several bonds. The radio quoted a gal who headed-up the faction in favor of all the bonds. She was as it turns out a district administrator and could hardly be deemed a neutral person. (And I of course had to wonder if she was paid additionally for her work on behalf of the bond package at the ballot box).
When I heard of this “report on the oppo” program cooked up by BHO’s advisors, it was similarly discomfitting. If this reform needs someone to defend it, it should be congressional sponsors but the WH should play little if any role.
We now see to what end the OBama perpetual campaign machine will be put
Report comment to moderator
RPN and Steve,
I get the fact its not an over taking of government. I get the fact its not socialized medicine.
But really, if the goal is to lower quality health care costs, how does this in any way go about lowering the cost of quality health care??
Nothing in the summary expresses how this will be done.
Nothing in the bill does this either.
Adding a governmental plan, will not drive down cost, if everyone is forced to pay for it, regardless of participation.
All the democrats and repbulicans in Congress could have signed the summary and it wouldnt mean jack if ZERO of them will be on this plan themselves.
As in another thread there was discussion of Issa not putting his money where his mouth is…why do you exempt Congress here from doing so?
There is a big red flag raised when Congressman wont eat their own cooking.
Report comment to moderator
OK, enough speculation about the White House snitch line.
Nashua Dan posted a comment on the Nashua Telegraph web site about health care and included the NH state motto “Live Free or Die”.
The Secret Service contacted the Telegraph and they immediately coughed up this guy’s contact information. They then contacted the man. Later he gave a public comment, “I’ll have to choose my words carefully.” He sounds a bit intimidated.
My question is “Where have all the liberals gone who care about civil rights? Where is the ACLU? Where are people who love freedom of speech without intimidation? Why do they not care about the White House asking people to turn in their friends and neighbors?” Liberals seem far more concerned about Sarah Palin than losing liberty.
Report comment to moderator
Really, all day and no reply Steve or RPN?
Can neither of you address the actual merit of this bill either?
It does ZERO to help the poor, the uninsured.
Report comment to moderator
Here is what taking names means:
a) White House sets up a snitch line.
b) Concerned citizen (called NashuaDan) disagrees with the president and posts the NH state motto on the Nashua Telegraph online.
c) A snitch named SLRNashuan threatens NashuaDan and emails the snitch line.
d) Secret Service contacts the Nashua Telegraph which immediately turns in their comrade.
e) Secret Service intimidates citizen into submission.
Liberals think it is perfectly fine. Complain about Bush instead. I’m waiting for the phone to ring.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: As I said in another thread, NashuaDan wrote a phrase that could be construed as a threat against the president. The Secret Service called him on the phone to ask him about it, and once he assured them he meant no threat, that was the end of it.
That is really the lamest case of “intimidation” I’ve ever heard.
Tell me something: If somebody a couple of years ago posted a message to a blog that said “George Bush needs to learn what ‘live free or die’ really means,” wouldn’t you feel good when the Secret Service checked it out to make sure it wasn’t a real threat?
Seriously, this is just a weird thing to be up in arms about. The Secret Service did the job it’s supposed to, and the whole thing was a short phone call.
And yes, duh, it’s a state motto. It also suggests death for people who aren’t willing to let you live free. Obama’s opponents believe he’s limiting freedom. Do you honestly think it should have just been obvious there was no real threat, that they should not have touched base with the man to be sure of that?
It’s not like they tied him to a chair and beat him with baseball bats until he pledged loyalty to the president, but that’s what you make it seem like.
Get a grip man.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: All the democrats and repbulicans in Congress could have signed the summary and it wouldnt mean jack if ZERO of them will be on this plan themselves.
All of them will be on the plan.
The misconception is that they are somehow exempting themselves because they (probably) won’t be on the public option. But then, neither will anybody else who doesn’t choose to be and can afford private coverage. It’s an option, not mandatory.
Report comment to moderator
Steve is such a patient man.
Report comment to moderator
NashuaDan could be construed as a threat — or jihadist.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, you trust politicians too much. Way too much.
First they say, “Just wear this yellow star. Don’t worry we won’t use it to harm you.”
Then they say, “We are going on a train ride. We would like you to work in a factory. Don’t worry we won’t harm you.”
Then they say, “We want everyone to take a shower. . . .”
Our repulic has lasted for 220 years. It has been a good run. As Benjamin Franklin said, “We’ve given you a republic, if you can keep it.”
Report comment to moderator
Kyle-
Please provide a recent factual basis for your fantastical train ride through the United States. We all agree Nazism is a huge and unreasonable leap to take from the discussion of how to best provide health care for everyone in our country.
Report comment to moderator
I gave an extreme example of the way politicians act.
If you want a less extreme example, just look at the history of Social Security. Start with how it was sold to the American public and follow its progress to what it is today.
Report comment to moderator
What about Social Security, Kyle?
Here’s an example of how it was “sold” to the public:
It may come as a surprise to many of us that we in this country should be so far behind Europe in providing our citizens with those safeguards which assure a decent standard of living in both good times and bad, but the reasons are not far to seek. We are much younger than our European neighbors. Our abundant pioneer days are not very far behind us. With unlimited opportunities, in those days, for the individual who wished to take advantage of them, dependency seemed a reflection on the individual himself, rather than the result of social or economic conditions. There seemed little need for any systematic organized plan, such as has now become necessary.
It nas taken the rapid industrialization of the last few decades, with its mass-production methods, to teach us that a man might become a victim of circumstances far beyond his control, and finally it “took a depression to dramatize for us the appalling insecurity of the great mass of the population, and to stimulate interest in social insurance in the United States.” We have come to learn that the large majority of our citizens must have protection against the loss of income due to unemployment, old age, death of the breadwinners and disabling accident and illness, not only on humanitarian grounds, but in the interest of our National welfare. If we are to maintain a healthy economy and thriving production, we need to maintain the standard of living of the lower income groups in our population who constitute 90 per cent of our purchasing power.
That’s from a speech in 1935 by Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, advocating Social Security. Here is a resources on the history of Social Security.
What’s different now?
Report comment to moderator
Have any of you used public healthcare? My children and I are now and we are so blessed. However, we fear that it will not be able to compete with the Federal programs as it is entirely subsidized by the state. They have recently cut back on some benefits as the state is suffering a financial crisis. Now, if cutbacks were to happen on a much LARGER scale?
Why can’t we support (fund) the programs in each state that ARE doing good? The ones with low rates of rejection of benefits and most largely used by the residents of each state? It will be more cost efficient to support the current infrastructure than reinvent a new one. Each state is different and has populations with varying health issues. A blanket solution is not the answer.
How much of our foundational beliefs are still yet evident or preserved in our country if the government mandates us?
We are an abused country. We are promised certain rights, laws, bills, etc. that are impossible to withhold. And, we are stretching our dollar so thin that it hardly withstands speculation in our own economy. Instead of circulating our money, we restrain it out of fear leading to our ultimate demise & decay.
Oh, America, wake up!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!