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
Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote
Abortion debate: Pro-lifers differ on abortion provisions found in the healthcare bill
Ken Blackwell praises Sen. Tom Coburn's warning to Democrats changing their nay votes on healthcare. 
Needing 218 votes to pass, HR 3692 was just passed 220-215.
Democrats voted 219 yea, 39 nay.
Republicans voted 1 yea, 176 nay.
C-SPAN said the 1 Republican vote in favor came from Louisiana Congressman Joseph Cao (LA-2).
UPDATE: AP now reports on the vote.
All original content Copyright © 2010 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top109 Comments to “U.S. House passes healthcare bill”
God help us.
Report comment to moderator
Sad day, the bill has in it a 5 year prision time, if you do not join Obama Care.
Report comment to moderator
Meh. This is just a government option at worst. Congress can’t nullify property rights and contract law. My insurance company will still be in business tomorrow.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s see. It was passed on the weekend with no one having read it or debated it.
Yup, this is the change we can believe in.
Report comment to moderator
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 887
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml
How about the Amish community and the Native Americans who do not want Health Care coverage (Obamacare)? Will they have to serve 5 year sentence in prison?
curious
Report comment to moderator
#5 – Right about the weekend.
Report comment to moderator
#7 I hope the mandate will be found unconstitutional. No one should be forced to purchase an insurance product against their will. Period.
Report comment to moderator
And idiots who have not read the bill will insist on using this forum to critique it.
I have read it. It’s legislation that we need. Anyone who is informed care to discuss it?
It would have been easy for Scott to post a link to the bill. He chose not to. Wonder why?
Report comment to moderator
Good morning.
Remember how our first President enforced the tax code.
Martial law and an army of 15,000 with the Secretary of the Treasury leading the charge.
Federalism. It’s what’s for dinner.
But no worries, folks. Remember the conversatin Jesus had with Peter about tax in Matthew 17:24-27? God will provide.
When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?” He said, “Yes.” And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?” Peter said to Him, “From strangers.” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. “Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.”
Report comment to moderator
EDIT “conversation” it should read there in #11.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
Attempting to bring up discussion by labeling your opponents as “idiots” is counterproductive and provocative, not to mention unnecessary.
It would’ve been nice to discuss it with you, however I see by your words you hold a position which would make objective and constructive dialogue difficult. If one leads with an ad hominem, one will certainly continue to use it in a discussion.
OH
Report comment to moderator
DJ
I think it could be consitutional. The government may borrow money and regulate commerce as well as “promote the general welfare”.
One could argue the constitutional legitimacy of it from that perspective. Depends on your flavor of interpretation – loose or strict.
Strictly speaking, no. There is no provision which states that the government can mandate health care.
Loosely speaking, yes. There are “necessary and proper” additions which can be made by Congress which could be justifiable based on the regulation of commerce and promotion of general welfare.
It’s whatever the Fed deems “necessary and proper.”
Granted, the courts could overturn it somehow down the road.
Report comment to moderator
In Washington’s administration, it wasn’t health care but the 1st U.S. Bank that was in question. Federalists thought it perfectly legitimate to establish a bank. Anti-feds, strict constructionists, did not. The bank won out. Commerce needed regulation. Currency needed stability.
Today, health care costs are out of control because of the open-market competition.
The health care bill has a sort of “trust-busting” Teddy Roosevelt feel to it. In a sense it could be argued that it is a break up of the private insurer’s grip on the market, as was Rockefeller’s grip on oil.
I think it fully reasonable to see the health care bill as a means of regulating commerce. This does not mean I agree with some of the provisions in it, but I for one will benefit more than be hurt by it, as I presently cannot afford private health insurance.
Report comment to moderator
I like how Jesus provided, too. A total surprise. Something I’m sure which never occurred to him.
But I think because Peter was a fisherman by trade, Jesus used something familiar to him and turned Peter’s everyday profession into a source of joy, discovery and amazement.
Coins in the mouth of the fish, just like the Lord said. Imagine what Peter was going through as he did that. I know my heart would have been pounding when I’d have felt that first tug on the line. Then to actually grab the fish and find the coins?
Truly this is the Son of God!
Report comment to moderator
OH – people who insist on decrying or supporting legislation without having read it… are idiots.
We have rather more idiots in America than we deserve.
I would classify anyone who plans on discussing the healthcare bill without having read it as an idiot. This would apply to both people who support it and people who oppose it.
I have observed that lot of people who oppose it have not read it. They are idiots as much as the supporters of the bill who have not read it are.
Report comment to moderator
On that very day some Pharisees came, saying to Him, “Get out and depart from here, for Herod wants to kill You.” And He said to them, “Go, tell that fox,‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.’
We could likewise posit ourselves in this scenario. Congress wants to kill us, tax us, whatever the case may be, but we have Jesus Christ the Lord. Let us not fear what man can do to us.
Tax us? Kill us? Imprison us? Sounds like first century Rome to me. Some of the greatest and most influential epistles of all time were written under the rod of Rome. Maybe its time we start to feel a little pressure.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Thomas, then I am an “idiot” for not reading it in its entirety, yet I believe I have a perspective on it that is still worthy of discussion.
Idiot is still an unnecessary epithet. You could say uninformed, perhaps. Otherwise you begin a discussion with emotive ad homs which will get either party involved nowhere.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Do you claim you have a full and comprehensive understanding of all the sections, subsections, references, codes and statutes within the bill, Thomas? Or does just reading it count?
In other words does one have to have a full and complete handle on the intricacies of references within the text of the bill to avoid being called an “idiot” by you?
I read some of it and my eyes glaze over because of the nuanced complexity of cross-referenced categories, laws, codes, etc. Some of it I understand, some of it I do not. Like this –
SEC. 1735. ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE SERVICES.
(a) In General- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not–
(1) withhold, suspend, disallow, or otherwise deny Federal financial participation under section 1903(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)) for the provision of adult day health care services, day activity and health services, or adult medical day care services, as defined under a State Medicaid plan approved during or before 1994, during such period if such services are provided consistent with such definition and the requirements of such plan;
Even if I went back to the act mentioned above, there would be more codes to follow. The level of complexity makes it dificult to “just” read it. I understand that this provides people on social security to continue to receive social security if enrolled in the program. I think, anyway.
I agree the bill should be read. Attempts should be made to familiarize onceself with it. Sure. But simply because people do not, does not make them idiots.
OH
Report comment to moderator
OH @ 16& 18: Exactly right.
God is God, and His people have nothing to fear.
Ceaser loses in the end of it all.
Report comment to moderator
According to Thomas1, anyone who opines without having read the bill is an idiot.
I say anyone claiming to have read and understood the entire bill and the thousands of documents it includes by reference is a liar. For instance, what does that reference to “section 1903(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C 1396(a))” mean?
Report comment to moderator
Roger
We so easily forget that “Caesar” is only just a servant of the Greatest Sovereign.
I like what Jesus says about Herod. “Go tell that fox…” Herod, for all his pomp and power, was just a “fox” in God’s eyes.
That would put me somewhere down in the insect group then, if we are going to construct a hierarchy of spiritual classification using the animal kingdom in a metaphorical sense. If Herod is a fox, then I am a beetle or better, a stink beetle. Yes.
Go tell that stink beetle…
Amen.
OH
Blessing to you this Lord’s Day.
Report comment to moderator
Pelosi calls it a bipartisan vote becuase ONE Republican voted for it.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob, thank you for your confession. It’s a great day when an idiot with an opinion acknowledges that he’s an idiot.
I happen to have a law degree and can read a stautue carefully, thanks. All of it, including all sections.
Morons who choose not to read things and still talk about them deserve to be pointed to and laughed at.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob
Yes. And that’s just one of many I discovered as I wafted through the text with my scroll buttons. What’s it all supposed to mean? I’m going to guess that there are few who truly know.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Thomas
You may claim to have a particular talent for understanding the complexities of the bill itself with your law background.
But knowledge puffs up. Love edifies. “Idiot” and “moron” reveal a great deal more about you than they do the people whom you choose to label.
Continue to insist upon your epithets hurled at others whom you do not even know Thomas and the less I personally wish to hear what you may have to say about health care reform. I only speak for myself.
OH
Report comment to moderator
No, Nana, I think one may get away with a definition of “bipartisan” voting here simply because there were two parties participating together in the act of voting.
Putting aside their differences, they all participated in the age-old congressional tradition of “AYE” and “NAY”.
Truly bipartisan.
But let us interpret political linguistics without becoming personal.
God is in full and total control of the proceedings.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Well, OH, if you’d prefer to get your perspective on the healthcare bill from more ignorant people, that tells me everything I need to know about you.
Enjoy FOX “news” and other sources of idiocy. But they won’t tell you what you need to know about healthcare legislation.
Report comment to moderator
Nana
I did not mean you were getting personal at all. It was a reminder to myself as much as anyone to focus on the argument and not go beyond calling anyone a “fox” as Jesus did.
Again, not accusing you of getting personal by any stretch of the means. No, no.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Thomas
Your commentary about what I know and how I know it is rather presumptive. You have no idea from what sources I receive my information.
I do not own a television and pay scant little attention to FOX news. I’ve gone to the text myself.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Stubob, thank you for your confession. It’s a great day when an idiot with an opinion acknowledges that he’s an idiot.
That’s not what I said, T1. You can’t understand the three sentences I wrote, yet you read and understood all 1990 pages of the bill and all of the references?
Bravo Sierra.
Report comment to moderator
While you might have some insight from which would benefit me, Thomas, but I see no particular reason or need to trust an interpretation of the bill from someone who makes sweeping generalizations about others whom he does not know simply because they have failed to live up to his particular standards of ad hominem baiting and argumentation.
Something to consider.
Report comment to moderator
OH, you are invaluable in highlighting specific sections of this dangerous bill. Have you heard that there’s a provision in the Senate bill that covers payments for praying for ill people?
Report comment to moderator
My representatives from Texas would not call me an idiot if I’d asked them questions on the bill or admit I hadn’t read it all.
The level of condescension you bring to the forum Thomas is apparent and hardly makes one desire to engage your posts.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Nana –
I had not.
My highlighting sections was not to point out any particular danger, but to press the point of the overabundant use of obscure law codes. I suppose that could be a danger, come to think of it.
But no. I had not heard of the “prophet-for-hire” provision.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Nana I do aspire to be helpful.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Thomas
I will conclude my thoughts toward your posts with this thought.
The essence of the Christian life is death. In death, Jesus was glorified. Glory for the Christian begins with a “fear and trembling”, a pronounced death to self that originates in an encounter with a holy and just God – a terrifying but cleansing holiness and grace which effectually alters a person’s perspective on life and what is important.
As the poet Wendel Berry writes…
The mind that comes to rest is tended
In ways that it cannot intend
It is borne,preseverved and comprehended
By what it cannot comprehend.
In other words, man’s true rest, man’s very nature, his living and breathing and speaking and eating are upheld by a Being we can barely begin to understand.
Your centering your particular judgment of others upon your own standards is to me indicative that you have yet to grasp the infinite majesty and horror of falling into the hands of the living God. You spout out judgmental generalizations of your fellows with indignant certitude, as if health care legislation is holy writ and you are its prophet.
In short, I would question your intentions in posting. They suggest mere provocation and are repleate with jejune and banal caricatures of others whom you’ve never met. You poke and antagonize. For what ends? Enjoyment of seeing yourself as superior to others?
Repent and believe brother.
OH
Report comment to moderator
“Our souls are formed by what we cannot work up or take charge of – ”
Eugene Peterson
Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places
An excellent thought to keep in mind when we recognize we are not in control of things.
OH
Report comment to moderator
#25 Thomas1
“I happen to have a law degree and can read a stautue carefully, thanks. All of it, including all sections.”
Do you win any jury trials with this truculent demeanor and word choice and usage?
Report comment to moderator
I have been at a lose for those on this blog who say that Republicans are the same as Democrats.
Would George W. Bush sign this bill? I think not.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024912.php
Report comment to moderator
Bob
In some ways, they are. Romans 3:11-12
“There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
OH
Report comment to moderator
In Practice: Church and State — some lessons for us church members
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Roth
Your thoughts in the link above?
You said – “The fewest should not decide for everybody.”
There is nothing particularly wrong with having a small group of people make decisions for a larger majority. I do this all the time as a teacher, so does my principal, so does our school board, etc.
I think you have to make that judgment case-by-case. Jethro told Moses to appoint “leaders” to judge and make decisions for the people. By no means did these hand-selected folks comprise a majority. The antithesis of your statement would be that everybody decides for everybody.
Do you really want to be ruled by the horde which chants “Great is the goddess Dianna” for several hours?
What are the Scriptural parameters of this statement?
OH
Report comment to moderator
It’s typical trash to critique something you have not read.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas
You can apply the same spirit (not the language) of the context of your comment regarding not reading a bill toward judging others whose lives you’ve never read.
OH
Report comment to moderator
The lives of people who criticize legislation that they do not read need a LOT of critiquing, OH.
Report comment to moderator
Enjoy your knowledge of law and criticism of others in isolation, then Thomas.
OH
Report comment to moderator
#47 Thomas1
“The lives of people who criticize legislation that they do not read need a LOT of critiquing, OH.”
You remind me of Bullwinkle J Moose as “Mr. Know-It-All.”
Report comment to moderator
“If you think health care is expensive now, wait ’till it’s free.”
RR
Report comment to moderator
Thomas,
Sooooo, just what does …that reference to “section 1903(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C 1396(a))” mean? .
Stubob asked you a question which you are under absolutely no obligation to answer. But for a minute there I thought that you might have some knowledge that I lack when you said 1)you have read the entire bill and 2)you happen to have a law degree and can read a stautue carefully, thanks. All of it, including all sections.
Refusal to grace us with your comprehensive knowledge on the subject after making such a big deal about our ignorance, would be a little churlish, don’t you think? It would also leave a reasonable person with considerable doubt of your credibility. Why don’t you be a good sport and answer Stubob, if you can.
Report comment to moderator
DJ
1 Kings 18:27 may be helpful for your petition.
“…“Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.”"
Or he is looking up the reference.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Here’s what the code itself says.
Sec. 1903. [42 U.S.C. 1396b] (a) From the sums appropriated therefor, the Secretary (except as otherwise provided in this section) shall pay to each State which has a plan approved under this title, for each quarter, beginning with the quarter commencing January 1, 1966—
If this little tidbit whets your appetite for more, you may follow this link below into the catacomb depths of legal jargon that would make even the diabolical Montressor shudder.
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title19/1903.htm
OH
Report comment to moderator
tee-hee! Y’all are sad sorry sacks o’ stuff
Report comment to moderator
Eloquent and persuasive defense of your legal knowledge, Thomas. Fantastically evasive, grammatically incorrect and further proof that we need not worry too much about what you claim to know.
Thanks for your thoughtful commentaries and insightful eptithets. We are enlightened.
OH
Report comment to moderator
“Sad day, the bill has in it a 5 year prision time, if you do not join Obama Care.”
Oh the misinformation is sad. I’m also sad that you call yourself a Pastor. Hopefully, you’re just one of those religious wackos with 4 followers in a shopping center store front that’s used as a city hall service branch 6 days a week. God’s children deserve more intellectual curiosity from those who claim to spread his word!
Report comment to moderator
It is my understanding that if you do not purchase an insurance product, or pay a large tax, you will go to jail. Is this not so?
Report comment to moderator
I’m bright. I got As in school and while attending a reasonably prestigious university. I read all the time and I have a very large vocabulary. I understand lots of literary terms. I test well. I test in the “gifted” range.
I don’t say this to brag, but to say that I am definitely a highly literate person.
And, I can’t even begin to read and understand this bill. To expect people with no training in “lawyer speak” to read and understand a HUGE bill full of legalese with no training at all is simply ridiculous.
As with most things in our lives (most of us are not doctors, or mechanics, or astrophysicists, or specialists in EVERYTHING), we go to sources we trust who ARE trained and are specialists in a field, and we listen to what they have to say and judge from there.
That is part of the definition of a Republic. We vote in people who (supposedly) understand the definitions (or have people who do and that they depend on), and then we allow them to create the laws.
If we think they’re doing a poor job (based on other experts and on results) we vote them out.
We are not “idiots” for not being experts on law. I’ll bet Stubob could run circles around Thomas in medicine, because Stubob is a specialist in medicine. To expect him to be a specialist in law as well is simply ridiculous.
I sure hope Thomas never gets an illness and — when he goes to the doctor — has the doctor tell him, “Didn’t you read up on this? Didn’t you run the tests? Why are you coming to me with an opinion on your health when you haven’t studied medicine first? I simply can’t discuss this with someone who is such an idiot.”
Report comment to moderator
DJ
From what I have read about the penalty, it seems to refer to IRS codes from 1986, which are basically jail time for tax evasion, nothing that isn’t already there.
Basically, the goverment says if you do not do something about your own health care but it is determined that you can, you will be assessed a maximum of 2.5% penalty of some sort. If this penalty isn’t paid, then you could be facing jail time for tax evasion. There are also various tax codes which apply to employers who do not comply as well.
Likewise, the penalties remain for those who are not honest about their gross income in relation to avoiding health care tax penalty by lying about their income (page 260 of the PDF bill of which I have a copy).
From about page 287 on, there are penalties for employers who do not adeqately participate in the program described which are in the IRS codes.
This is a very elementary interpretation, but the jist of what I can tell, the government will penalize you or your employer for not complying with the tax as they would if you did not comply with Social Security withholdings.
But I am reading in a moment’s notice to admit fault with my interpretations.
OH
Report comment to moderator
TRS
Thomas1’s tearse jabs are unworthy of your insightful commentary. He has yet to fulfill us with the knowledge he claims to have. Like yourself, I tried reading parts of this bill and even have the 4.0 KB file on my computer. It’s a rough read.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Mynock #57.
That’s a bit harsh. “God’s children” if that’s indeed what they are, would not be so quick to criticize the outward appearance as you have done.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Conservatives will not be able to get health care under the new legislation. However, Muslims, liberals, and homosexuals will be able to get health care. As conservative Christians are outbreeding the other groups, the race is now properly handicapped.
Report comment to moderator
Five years from now, conservative Christians will not only be taking advantage of government health care, they will claim to have invented it, be taking credit for passing it, and demand they should be re-elected on that basis.
I probably won’t be alive any more, and for that matter, worldmagblog will not be around any more. Otherwise, I would post an “I told you so” comment. It would be totally ignored.
Report comment to moderator
#60 Old Hickory,
So basically, we get assessed a tax if we do not purchase a health insurance product. That stinks out loud. Obama promised that he would neither raise taxes on those making less than $250K nor mandate that we must purchase a health insurance product. He criticized McCain and Clinton because their plans did both. And all this does nothing at all for the economy.
Ignore me. I’m just ticked.
Report comment to moderator
Well, RN certainly settled that, except there is no new legislation enacted yet. When it is, there may be no choice for anyone who doesn’t want to pay a fine or risk jail time.
Report comment to moderator
conservative Christians are outbreeding the other groups, the race is now properly handicapped.
Random –
How do nihilists know if Christians are handicapping “the race”? Perhaps it is the nihilist with his authoritative imperatives which he makes up which do the most damage.
I don’t know. I’m not a nihilist or an agnostic. But I will say I don’t really believe nihilists exist.
OH
Report comment to moderator
DJ
That’s what it sounds like from what I read. But anyone is free to correct me. I think what is being said here is that there is no “no excuse” not to be covered. Either get traditional benefits from a provider or go the government option route OR if you choose not to be ensured but can afford to be, be prepared to pay a small tax and remain uninsured.
If you willfully do not comply with those “options” then the penalties begin to get assessed. But the language is so confoundedly complicated I’m sure I’ve misinterpreted it somehow.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Encarb (#7), I believe that there is a “religious Conscience” exemption for folks such as the Amish. However, in order “to get the exemption, taxpayers must provide evidence they are members of a qualifying sect that has been in existence continuously since 1950″. Please feel free (anyone), to correct me if this is not so.
Report comment to moderator
OH,
I don’t need an “excuse” not to purchase an insurance product if I don’t want to. The argument that one is somehow ‘irresponsible’ if one doesn’t purchase such a product is just malarkey. If someone pays for the cost of their own healthcare, they are being responsible. Period. Forcing people to purchase any product under threat of taxation is a violation of civil rights. What legitimate right does the government have to force me to purchase such a product?
Report comment to moderator
Hope
You are correct.
It’s under section 59b – “Tax On Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage” Scrolling down a bit, we come to “5″ Which is the “Religious Conscience Exemption” which has another reference to another section 1402(g)(1). But I could not find that one.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Can someone get a decaf for Thomas?
Report comment to moderator
# 57: Seems to be saying, ‘Can’t debate you so I will smear and ridicule you. That will fix you!’
Report comment to moderator
#17-By your definition, Thomas, most of the members of Congress who voted for the bill are idiots. Considering the bill has only been finished for a couple of days, do you honestly expect us to believe that you read all 1900 pages and can remember them in their entirety? I say not only are you an insulting, condescending elitist, but you are lying about reading the bill as well.
Report comment to moderator
Obama, Pelosi and Reid haven’t read this entire bill with full understanding either. My question for Thomas is why he approves of a bill created by idiots.
Report comment to moderator
Hopefully, T1 has found less vulgar company, although they could still be idiots. Birds of a feather, you know.
Report comment to moderator
OH — about law text.
Lots of legislation will be like that — it has to since what is going on is a series of changes to existing regulations and the like. After all, if this is to be law, the jots and tittles have to be taken care of.
For a sense of what the bill looks like, it is better to go to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) — they provide summaries of legislation. Here is the summary for the senate plan. I’m sure there are plenty of commentators out there who can provide you with sufficient horror stories, but at least this way you’ll know overall, what they’re talking about.
Report comment to moderator
I should also have pointed you to this document: the explanation of the bill, clause by clause. You can print it off if you would like. It’s not the legal or technical language, but it explains what you’re looking at.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Harris. I claim no expertise in legal interpretations of things. I wrote a book of jargon a few years ago when I applied for a 501(c)(3) and it was miraculously approved.
However, this does not make me an expert in legal code as I mentioned.
OH
Report comment to moderator
BTW
I went to the LOC site and actually went into the text of the bill but it bogged my browser down. Thanks for the summary though.
OH
Report comment to moderator
#66
Well, RN certainly settled that, except there is no new legislation enacted yet. When it is, there may be no choice for anyone who doesn’t want to pay a fine or risk jail time.
Email me at eman_modnar@yahoo.com to assist me in setting up a defense fund for Nana, to help bail her out of the government-run hospital. Perhaps we can provide her a turbo-assisted wheelchair so she can outrun the HHS patrol cars chasing her.
Report comment to moderator
I am so happy that Thomas1 called everybody who has not read HR 3962 idiots because with that statement he is including over 100 Democratic representatives who did NOT read the health care takeover bill before reading it.
Does the bill contain language that will fine you $250,000 and up to 8 year prison sentence if you do not buy insurance? Yes it does. Title IV Subtitle A. Individual Responsibility. Section 401.
Does this bill give incredible amounts of power to a health commissions director for everything under the sun in your health care decisions. Yes it does in multiple sections too numerous to write.
Did every amendment offered by a Republican get rejected with language that would shock people? Yes it did and people like Steny Hoyer and some moron from Illinois who tried the shock jock impersonation of Grayson and it was disgusting to watch every time a Republican tried to say anything the Democrats in the back of the room booing and hollering (yes they had to be gaveled down countless times).
This bill will lead to higher taxes for all Americans, not just the wealthiest 5% as claimed (oops with the exception of the little clause snuck in there that will reduce taxes for homosexual couples) and if allowed to go through will lead us into the deepest recession any of us can imagine.
But not to worry because there is little chance this 2235 page monstrosity will ever get approved through the Senate.
Report comment to moderator
How do nihilists know if Christians are handicapping “the race”? Perhaps it is the nihilist with his authoritative imperatives which he makes up which do the most damage.
I don’t know. I’m not a nihilist or an agnostic. But I will say I don’t really believe nihilists exist.
I don’t really believe God exists, but I cannot prove his non-existence. Perhaps you have a term or description than agnostic?
Whatever kind of medical care system our nation has or changes over to, nothing will keep us alive forever. We will all cease to exist. Perhaps we will live forever in a “Heaven” or a “Hell.” There is no empirical evidence to support life after death. Someone here told me that there are other ways to truth; other people at worldmagblog told me about how predictions in the Bible came true (which sounds awfully empirical to me, though exceedingly dubious).
But I will say I don’t really believe nihilists exist.
I am having trouble believing that people who believe knowledge comes from means other than empiricism (whatever the snappy label is for such people) exist.
For two days I have been sniffing and coughing a little. Perhaps by tomorrow I will find out if I have the flu or not, and if the new and improved healthcare system will save my life or kill me.
Stay tuned. Spray brain sanitizer after reading a comment I post.
I am not sure where you are supposed to spray it. Obviously, wherever I sprayed it did not work.
Report comment to moderator
For that matter, html tags for turning off italic don’t exist.
Report comment to moderator
For great reading I suggest Title V – Amendments to Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Great reading……really interesting how they think this may be constitutional. Oh Thomas that would be sections 501 through section 571 and cross references many other sections of this bill and many other bills. See this is not just one bill but this bill makes so many changes to other bills that you can’t just read this bill you have to read the whole thing.
Some of us have read the bill (not in whole because nobody has done that, not even the people who supposedly wrote it…..please someone go ahead and tell me Dingle wrote this bill, his brain is so rattled from strokes he can barely form a sentence) but we have read it through http://www.opencongress.org.
See if you read it that way you don’t have to wander through the 2200+ pages….of course you don’t get to see some of the awesome highlights in there but at least you can see what a piece of trash this is.
Report comment to moderator
There is a group of very wealthy individuals in the Hampton Roads area who met this afternoon and decided that if this bill goes through that they will divest themselves of their current insurance plans (they have the money set aside to pay for health care) and they will voluntarily tell the IRS and the Health Commissions Director (I personally like the title Czar better) that they do not have insurance to challenge the government to fine and/or arrest them and then they will take this to the highest courts in the land to challenge the constitutionality of telling people they HAVE to purchase a product.
I sell LED lighting and I am now going to advocate that all Americans HAVE to purchase LED lighting (preferably from me) or they will be fined and/or go to jail. How do you think that will work out?
Or better yet, we are all supposed to be health nuts now, eating only green stuff and never touching fatty foods. So the government decides that you HAVE to purchase prunes once a week or you will be fined and/or go to jail. How is that going to go over?
Or in order to breath the air you must purchase a special mask made only by the government in order to breath or you will be fined and/or go to jail. Want to take a flyer on that one?
Health insurance is a product not a right.
Report comment to moderator
The reason I do not believe nihilists exist is that they have moral opinions about things while at the same time claim there is no objective morality.
But what if two nihilists meet one another and discuss morality? Would not one’s morality be proof of another objective morality other than their own?
Where then does the nihilist’s knowledge of morality come? How does the nihilist empirically know his morality is real if there isn’t some other way to “the truth”?
I do not believe in agnosticism, either. To say “we cannot know” is to “know”. So even for the agnostic, there is this obvious fact that we must be able to know something. But who or what ever said it wasn’t possible to know? Perhaps the cure for agnosticism is to do a bit of research.
I don’t know. I’ve never been an agnostic.
Report comment to moderator
But then interestingly enough, the agnostic/nihilist runs into a dilemma if he is to attempt to do research.
He has standards and criteria regarding what sort of things he will accept as valid.
But there are no real standards of objective reality in the moral or “truth” sense to which he may compare his research findings, save for himself.
So the agnostic/nihilist rejects information which confronts his own self-made standards of assessing reality and truth and reverts back to his own assertion that “it cannot be known”.
And if the nihilist/agnostic says “it cannot be known” he will never recognize when it “can be known” for he thinks it always will never be known. But since there is no objective moral truth available to compare what he claims not to know to what is actually known, he will thus have to revert back to his own make-believe.
This will require more than brain sanitizer.
OH
Report comment to moderator
And if H.R. 3962 becomes it will not be able to spare us from our eventual deaths. It might prematurely bring death for some or it may put it off for an extra few years for others. It does not give us proof, however, that agnosticism is real.
For the agnostic/nihilist, however, he fails to recognize that I never said empiricism was all bunk. I said empiricism as the only means to the truth is all bunk.
Who or what ever said to the agnostic/nihilist that we cannot know something? How does the agnostic/nihilist know he wasn’t just talking to himself one day and overheard the conversation and thought it was a good idea? Or did the agnostic/nihilist read it in a book?
If the latter is true, then the agnostic is no longer a nihilist for he has read something, a rule, a precept, that comes from someone else. This would radically alter the nihilist perception that there is no such thing as objective moral truth. For certainly the nihilsts finds a truth outside of himself which he chooses to believe.
This is why I do not believe in nihilists.
OH
Report comment to moderator
It is interesting to see a nihilist make the claim “This is false” or “This is true” regarding morality.
How can one be an agnostic and a nihilist?
I do not know.
Agnostics say “I do not know” and the nihilist says plainly, “No there isn’t.”
So the agnostic/nihilist says “I don’t know there isn’t, but I do know there isn’t what I don’t know.” Something like that which will need more than health care reform to fix.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Old Hickory – Are you having fun here?
Report comment to moderator
OH, I thought you settled this debate with yourself a few days ago. I’ve very much appreciated your comments on health care legislation and hope you continue. What do you know about Christian reconstruction (not sure that’s the correct term)?
Night has long since fallen here….zzz.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Karen, same wave length
Report comment to moderator
I am, but I do not think Random is. He seems to get a bit chopfallen whenever I decry the inconsistencies of nihilism. But I am hoping he will buck up and defend nihilism more robustly than simply picking on me for finding fault with empiricism as the sole means to the truth.
It is rather odd. Random the nihilist doesn’t believe in objective moral truth, but whenever I bring up empiricism, he offers no resistence to the idea that truth exists.
So we shall see.
Or we shall not.
Random, hope you get to feeling better soon.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Nana
I’m buzzing about with Random Name. I’ve taken to chiding nihilism as he has taken to chiding the Christian faith.
It is in serious good-natured fun and I hope he will take on a few of my thoughts.
I have no idea what Christian reconstruction is. And my comments on the bill today are simply that, mine. I could be totally wrong. Harris was helpful in providing the link that he did. My efforts to interpret the bill were text-to-brain-to-blog. Take them with multiple grains of salt.
Thanks, though. I enjoyed writing about it anyway.
OH
OH
Report comment to moderator
HARRIS, thank you so very much for the handy CRS links for the Senate bill. Much appreciated. It seems to already exclude abortion funding, unless it’s contained in the details.
They’re out this week and then meet next week before the Thanksgiving recess.
Report comment to moderator
So we shall see.
Or we shall not.
Oh, I can answer that one right now:
We shall not.
Report comment to moderator
Old Hickory, I suspect you are a purist. Unless you encounter a person who walks into walls while saying, “I’m not sure walls really exist,” you apparently don’t think he is really agnostic.
I have walked into walls when not paying attention. On the other hand, I have not walked into any Gods, or for that matter gods. However, at worldmagblog, I have encountered many people who believe in God, or at least tell me so by words that appear on my monitor, and I half believe most of you exist, so I guess I am a half-ag, though I never attended Texas A&M, not even for half a term.
Report comment to moderator
Yep, I was right.
Report comment to moderator
As far as nihilism, when I was a child, I fried ants with a magnifying glass, just out of childish malice and curiosity. I was a ten-year-old nihilist.
After I got older, I stopped such activities as childish.
Now that I am old, I shoot rabbits with a pellet rifle. Some wmb Christians deplore this and some do hunt animals themselves. However, I try and kill the rabbit as quickly and painlessly as possible. So I guess I am no more than a half-nihil.
However, if you had asked me five years ago if I was a nihilist, I probably would have said “no.” Five years of reading comments explaining conservative Christianity to me have led me to the conclusion that I am a radical agnostic and a not really evil nihilist.
Given the intelligent and articulate comments often provided to me, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that I am a half-wit. Or as people sometimes say, is the class half full or half empty.
However, I suspect when I die, I will be all dead.
Your mileage may vary, or as a rock and roll band once sang,
And as we wind on down the road
Our shadows taller than our soul
There walks a lady we all know
Who shines white light and wants to show
How everything still turns to gold
And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last
When all is one and one is all, yeah
To be a rock and not to roll.
And she’s buying the stairway to heaven
Report comment to moderator
For clarity: people who critque what they have not read, or sign things into law without reading them, or whine about a piece of legislation that will help the uninsured who would otherwise be a burden on the state… are idiots.
Idiots come in Democrat and Republican flavors, young, old, Christian and non-Christian.
Report comment to moderator
For further clarity: People who claim to have read the entire “healthcare” bill and all of the references are liars.
Thomas1 claims to have read the entire bill and all of the references.
This could be seen as part of a syllogism, I suppose.
Report comment to moderator
For even further clarity: Those who continue to debate by calling people names will be banned from this blog.
Report comment to moderator
#83 IAF
Now that is patriotic. I am so tired of constantly being treated like a consumer—by the government. It’s the only lense that many Repubs every look through, and the Dems are taking it one giant step further, and we are now basically to be shamed and criminalized if we do not submit to it. What a crock.
Report comment to moderator
#103 – thank you Mickey, that statement has been long overdue and I for one very much appreciate it.
#102 – Stubob – you are very correct because as many of the Democratic representatives have admitted, there is no ONE person who has read the entire bill. I spoke with Congressman Forbes office and Congressman Nye’s office and they said that all staffers and many volunteers were taking portions of the bill and marking them up. Basically Congressman Nye’s office said that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the congressman to actually read the ENTIRE bill. When it came down to it though, Mr. Nye serves from a military town, a conservative town and it doesn’t matter whether it is a D or R behind his name he found that his conscience could not allow him to vote for such an over reaching bill.
Keep fighting this bill, now is the time to call your senators and make sure that this HR 3962 debacle does not ever see the light of day in our great country.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.09.09 AT 5:56 AM
For clarity: people who critque what they have not read, or sign things into law without reading them, or whine about a piece of legislation that will help the uninsured who would otherwise be a burden on the state… are idiots.
Idiots come in Democrat and Republican flavors, young, old, Christian and non-Christian.
—
“uninsured who would otherwise be a burden on the state” How does Obama Care change that? These people will still be a burden on the state.
Report comment to moderator
“Today, health care costs are out of control because of the open-market competition.” ?????
In what world does competition make prices go up? And where is the open market in a tightly regulated and
“will help the uninsured who would otherwise be a burden on the state”
By what constitutional provision are people who don’t want or need or are incapable of finding insurance made burdens on the state? The purposes of the federal government are summed up as providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare. The necessity of a federal government providing and mandating health insurance seemed to elude the founding fathers. Presumably, they would have expected the citizens of the republic they were founding to use private resources or work on the state level.
Report comment to moderator
Just a note of concern…..I expected Musing to be on here touting the awesome victory…..did he/she/it get banned?
Report comment to moderator
I suspect Betsy McCaughey of the Wall Street Journal knows more about this plan than Thomas. Here’s a few things she found:
1. Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a “qualified plan.”
In other words, you can’t keep your plan and Obama is a liar.
2. This will cost the average single taxpayer (making $44K/year) 17% of his pre-tax income or $7,300 per year. If you’re married with an income of $102K a year it will cost you 20% of your pre-tax income or $20,000 per year.
In other words, most everyone will be saddled with a massive tax and Obama is a liar.
3. Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the “qualified plan” is not yet designed, it will be of the “one size fits all” variety.
You will be penalized for so-called Cadillac plans and Obama is a liar.
4. Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
Joe Wilson called Obama a liar and he was right.
5. While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
This bill is fundamentally racist. Obama overwhelmingly supports it.
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!