Jordan, I thank God for all the work you & your Dad are doing with regards to Obamacare and Planned Parenthood. It's definitely time to defund them-to make sure that they don't get a red cent of our tax dollars. As an ultra conservative Catholic Christian, it has disturbed me greatly that Mr. Obama applauds the work of Planned Parenthood, knowing that they kill infants in the womb. It is also disturbing that we, as a nation, have not been able to overturn Roe vs Wade all these years! Someone has been paid off in order to keep Planned Parenthood in business.(our gov't has been supporting them) But we must remain vigilant, we must not give up the fight! I hope and pray that we put Planned Parenthood out of business for good!God bless you both!

i do not care about republicans or democrats you ware the finest clothes make the long eloquent speeches that is not what i want i want the schools taken from the nea no matter how long you have doing some thing if you are not doing a good job you should be fired and when you retire you should not make more money then your pay check was i want senators and congressmons to have term limits and no retirement benefits not social security nothing ever one should get out of the social security what they put in all of the monies taken from the social security funds should be retured all of the people who get social security checks retired senaters congressmon should only get what they put in so if you are drawing a check you did not contribute you should lose that money go live in the projects with me wash your own dishes clean your own subsides housing

" With conservative success in the midterm elections, due in large part to the Republican pledge to repeal Obamacare, ..."

No, the republican success, not conservative success, was due to democratic incompetence. We fired them for being failures, yeah us - the independents, we did that, not you.
We fired them for thinking we elected them for their uber liberal causes, when the fact is they were elected because we fired YOUR incompetent conservatives in congress.

And here you go, immediately making the same mistake they did, thinking we hired you because we agree with your fanatic ideologies, or that we somehow like you.

We despise you as well, it's just that it's your turn. Enjoy it while it lasts, because hearing you conservatives claim a mandate like this is as foolish as when the liberals claimed they had a mandate. You won't last long.

In fact, our disgust with you is likely to propel Obama back into the presidency in 2012, something lots of us do not want to see.

So STFU already. You have a nice stick up yourass, why don't you just polish it up and rotate it a little, leave the rest of us alone.

A pretty good article in the New York Times regarding the recent symbolic lockstep rejection of healthcare reform by the newly republicanized house of representatives (think 'vulcanized' or impervious to penetration - by logic or common sense). That this will be used by minority Senate republicans to hold all kinds of reasonable legislation hostage goes without saying.

Several republican led states are queuing up to attempt outright rejection of federally mandated healthcare reform as we speak. This is apparently a kneejerk effort to pander to their poorly informed constituents, rather than openly objecting to the many positive elements and benefits in the actual legislation.

Whether the Supreme Court will or will not uphold the newly mandated blanket requirement to obtain health insurance will probably not be known for a year or two.

One wonders if those so vocally opposed to healthcare reform on principle will also reject social security and medicare when eligible for these mandatory payin programs. Not likely - and so goes the requirement to self-insure with healthcare reform.

As it is, many millions are already covered by private healthcare plans through employers (which generally require co-payments for many services) - and most folks past the age of 65 supplement medicare part B with private insurance plans. The fact is, all of this could be improved to a considerable degree.

Healthcare reform is nothing new - the concept of providing healthcare to ALL Americans is simply an idea whose time has come. We're required to do all kinds of things that we don't like for the common good - and for the ideologically driven naysayers, this is one of those times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/business/23view.html?src=busln

To apbenlulu | January 21, 2011 7:35 PM: I couldn't have said it better myself!I'm proud of all the House Reps who had the good sense of conscience to vote for repeal of the HCR.....actually I prefer calling it "Obamacare" since he's the one heading up this foul idea at the moment. I for one don't have healthcare, and certainly don't expect to hang my health costs on my neighbors. I also don't want to be forced to buy insurance I can't afford. I'm over 60, certainly not wealthy, but with God's help I'll continue to pay my own way or I won't use the service.

The US federal overnment may be said to have six functions:

1. Foreign Relations - Diplomacy and Defense

2. Develop business strength - Incubate small business, special research and development, such as space research, job training, unemployment insurance and more.

3. Protect and regulate the sustainable use of natural resources.

4. Enforce and regulate fair and responsible business practices. Included in this is monitoring monetary policy, giving consumer protection and regulating banking practices.

5. Determine and enforce civil laws of property and conduct. This includes the freedoms of the press, religion and rights of property.

6. Provide public goods and services for the well-being of the community as a whole, such as infrastructure, vaccination programs, disaster relief, fireworks shows, public parks, basic healthcare, subsidized housing, public education and public utilities.

(These are things that the government provides better than private business for the community at large through pooling money and resources. There are more positive externalities for society when government provides public goods and services.)

Power is what determines how honestly and fairly these functions are implemented and enforced for the good of all. Money is power, and visa versa - ergo, nothing is fair or democratic about how all of this actually works.

Without the Constitution as a guide, and our imperfect governmental oversight and regulation, we can be sure that chaos would rein, and our return to some kind of totalitarian rule would be guaranteed (possibly a purified form of the corporate feudalism that currently rules).

Washington lobbyists are the clearest example of how power brokering and special interests work covertly in the body politic - and often against our own best interests.

Europe is much further along the way to the kind of more perfect social democracy that we might hope for one day in the future. National healthcare is a crucial step forward, and follows in the footsteps of the hugely successful Social Security and Medicare programs.

To look for a nearby model of our future healthcare system in the USA, look no further than the Veterans Healthcare system - currently the largest healthcare organization in America.

If you think government is simply about force and coercion then it's no wonder your system doesn't work properly! You seem to think that it is your spiritual duty to fight it rather than appreciate it and improve it.

Government is about the rule of law, conciliation and service.

Government doesn't work when members of the House and Senate are owned by corporations and make laws (or destrot them) despite that this does not serve the interests of the people or express their wishes.

Unregulated Capitalism cannot and will not ever make it possible that everyone has what they need. Many conservative christians are fond of quoting the Old Testament for it's judgements, but they ignore the commands to look after the poor and needy. Israel was condemned for that sin just as much as for worshipping false idols.

As christians, we are to honour and worship Christ alone, not Christ plus capitalism or socialism or whatever ideology you care to name.

Abortion is evil, but so is giving tax cuts to the wealthy when you have people who can't get a job, can't get health care, and need things like food stamps to survive.

I've always found your comments very favorable in the past, but this thing on health care has me puzzled because while the congress votes to repeal the health care bill and they (congress) have a 5 star health coverage for themselves what happens to the poor folks who have no health coverage? I am a supporter of no abortion but do we have to throw out the baby with the bath water? Please explain because there are a lot of people who needs health coverage.

John and Jay, you guys are true patriots and who better than you both, leading the fight for the defenseless unborn child!

On my college radio show I frequently insist the 28th Amendment to the United Constitution will be the overturning of Roe vs. Wade! (I hope and pray!) The Balance the Budget Amendment will be the 29th!

Thank you so much for continually preserving our United States Constitution and everything it stands for!

Anne

anneinjersey@yahoo.com

http://www.wix.com/uccradio/uccr

we as humans have a light, dark side( good vs evil). abortion is murder and the unborn can`t defend themselves, a easy kill. and keeps a control of unwanted ,and what race of people have the most abortions per population. BLACKS . Check this out . what side is then our president?

As I see it, many in America suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of what government is. Government is force and coercion. Therefore, it simply doesn't work to allow government to get involved in certain arenas. Obamacare is the most recent and blatant example. Obamacare is just wrong on so many different levels. It doesn't matter if you're religious or atheist, pro-business or anti-business, pro-government or anti-government. If you really think it through to its logical conclusion, there's more than ample cause to strike down Obamacare.

1. The morality government subsidy: If I need something but don't have the means to get it, so I steal the means from you, either through force, deception or sneakiness, we call that crime. If I hire someone else to do the dirty work, that's still a crime. But if I vote someone into office to do the dirty work, somehow that's legal. Why? Because government law defines what is legal. But does government law define what is moral? This is why any form of government subsidy is immoral.

2. The economics of government subsidy: Any time government tampers with the market, whether it intends to or not, it creates monopolies and reduces/destroys competition. The result of this is always lower quality and higher prices.

3. Forcing taxpayers to fund anything that violates their conscience is morally wrong. Abortion has been funded by tax dollars for a long time now. I think it's interesting that Obamacare's expansion of taxpayer funded abortion has suddenly made it one of the top issues of contention that will result in Obamacare's demise. It's actually shameful that most people (including myself) haven't made a bigger stink about this a long time ago. So we're late to the party. I'm glad we're doing more about it now.

I just wish more people understood economics and the principles of freedom well enough to break down a government policy to its core elements and make a sound moral decision when they vote. But instead, we hear people talking about how they like Obamacare because it will provide health insurance when they had none before or provide health insurance for those who have none (not considering whether those people even would choose to get health insurance if they were given the choice.

The so called Health Care Reform Bill was nothing more then an unconstitutional mandate, it's repeal was what the people wanted all along. Big, bloated, wasteful government, is not the answer for America. It is amazing that we have a government that forces it's will on the people, a government that behaves like the government of the old Soviet Union. The people need to stand up and restore the government to it's limited Constitutional role, before it's too late.

Carstonio:
The point here was that the needy, will always be with us (Mat 26:11) and that I have no right to take your money to supply other's needs. It is however, the calling of all who name Jesus as Savior & Christ to do well by those in need (Luke 10:29-37 a neighbor)however they got there. This is a personal mandate. I can't pawn my responsibility off on the government.
My point is, that it is for me to do and not the government. Since that money taken in taxes is subject to the will of the people, HCR needs to be repealed. It was never meant to be reform for health. It was simply a grab for power taking and redistributing money from cheerless givers by the elite so they could remain the elite.
I was born to privilege being born American and will continue to exercise authority given to me by that birthright over what is done with my money It is my duty. Even if one vote doesn't sound like much, it is what was given to me, I'd like to add, at great cost, for which I am grateful.

I don't understand why the Republicans can't vote to edit the bill to make it better? Why throw out the good with the bad?

From my perspective this "Obamacare" does a lot of good for me. Being a young man in college, I don't have to worry about finding insurance the moment I get out of school. Honestly if this bill wasn't passed I wouldn't have gotten insured when I got out. If I got hurt, I'd worry about it then.

I do not think taxpayers should fund abortions but that can be corrected without throwing the entire bill out. It makes me skeptical whether Republicans are really trying to solve the healthcare issue, or just trying to destroy the progress made because Democrats pass this bill.

Healthcare in this country stinks. It's great if you have money, but if you don't you're out of luck. Why is it so expensive?!? Everyone needs it! It's not like doctors are going to be out of work anytime soon. Having the same procedure at vastly different costs in the same area doesn't look like a free market at work. It just looks like a way to make a profit off of someone else's calamity.

Apbenlulu, whatever method one favors in reforming health care, it isn't about "providing for the needy." Even prosperous people can be bankrupted by catastrophic illnesses, and the consequences of a faulty health care system affect everyone to some degree. (And acknowledging WMarkW's point about "smoking, diet and employment differences", any health care system should have incentives for people to practice healthy habits.) It cannot be stressed enough that the goal of any health care reform is making the system work better for everyone. The only people truly benefiting from the current system are the large shareholders of the insurers.

Being in the middle to lower end of our economy, I don't understand the reason for attacking people who support or don't support a particular law, but most importantly you should let your opinion show in your vote. I wonder how many of these commentators actually vote in all elections? My biggest question is why EITHER SIDE would want to support a bill that is as complicated and open ended as this insurance bill certainly is regardless of what you feel you need to name it.

I find it amazing that so much conversation is generated by people that want our government to carry out moral imperatives by providing for the needy (with our money no longer in our control) in all areas, even for the death of children in elective abortions.
If the HC issue was sincere it would not have taken a 2000 plus page bill. Simply expanding Medicare to Americans in need would have been a good place to start. Then, do like usual find(or print)the money later. Not that this is good, but it would have been workable. As it is this bill (now that we have read it) needs to be opposed any way available.
Thanks Jordan, you speak for many of us.

The reaction to the mandate is strange. It was originally a Republican idea, one touted by both Richard Nixon and the Heritage Foundation, and is part of the Massachusetts plan that Mitt Romney signed into law. It doesn't seem that much different in principle from the requirement to buy car insurance.

I suspect that much (not all) of the reaction was because of who Obama is. Last year I encountered and read about numerous people who viewed health care reform as simply a public assistance program, believing its sole mission was to give the poor free care at taxpayer expense. They used loaded euphemisms like "welfare class" and "people who don't want to work," terms that have their origins in Nixon's "Southern strategy."

My own view? Insurance was originally designed to spread risk, and having insurance companies that exist to benefit shareholders seems wrong in principle to me. I have family members who deal professionally with health insurers, and they describe tactics that seem designed to maximize shareholder return at the expense of both patients and doctors. I favor low-interest loans for people to form non-profit cooperative insurers, where any margins are shared by all policyholders.

My friend with cancer is broke because of his continuing fight with cancer and was just layed off from his job because he cannot do perform it's tasks after the treatment.

We need single-payer national health insurance because it's the correct solution to this huge problem with health care.

We are paying way too much of our national income on health care.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

How about financing health-care with the trillions we are spending on the Christian Oil Crusades and the billions we give Israel, helping them provide "socialist" universal health care to all their citizens?

JS:"Penalizing Americans for inaction is repugnant to our constitutional values."

DiTD and I have gone back and forth about ACA on other boards, and he does seem to understand the economics of it better that I do, since I'm thankfully a minimal consumer of health care.

I'm against the ACA as currently written because I don't believe its promises:
everyone can keep a current plan they like
no recission or denial for pre-existing
revenue neutrality
no net cost to taxpayers for illegals (i.e. to the extent they're covered, they pay their own way)

But Seklow's statement above is over-broad. The most philosophical libertarian in our society is still covered by the Fire Department, because we won't let his house burn down by inaction; so by extension we can tax him for fire department services.

Similarly, we won't let someone bleed to death on the street for lack of health coverage or ability to pay, so we can mandate/tax that everyone pay something for the universal coverage everyone gets.

A lot of the pro-ACA arguments have been about scenarios involving poor children. Most children's health care needs are pretty generic, and the ones who require expensive care is usually to bad luck that could just as likely happen to anyone. I suspect we could cover everyone's routine needs and emergencies cost-effectively.

It's making decisions about people over 50 based on their smoking, diet and employment differences that has to have a private system capable of making the economic trade-off of care vs. cost.

Insurance companies already subsidize health care, which causes it to go up in price. Now the new health care reforms will subsidize the insurance companies, causing insurance to go up in price. It really is visicious circle.

You cannot require insurance companies to insure all sick people under all circumstances, unless you require everyone to have health insurance. If the Republicans do not like this insurance based health care reform, they need to acknowledge that a more direct government involvemnt is the only alternative.

Merely leaving tens of millions of Americans to do without health insurance and normal minimal health care simply will not do.

gibsonpolk -

Reactionaries not only don't care what Jesus preached, they reject it and often lie about it.

Too bad the Washington Post doesn't bother with fact-checkers any more. If they did, Sekulow would never have gotten this error-riddled gem in:

"ObamaCare is bad for the economy. The federal government is taking control of what some have estimated to account for as much as 1/6 of the economy while simultaneously creating yet another entitlement program doomed to failure. There is nothing moral about leaving more economy-destroying debt for future generations."

Jordan, are you really so ignorant about this bill that you actually believed these false claims?

Why don't you start by telling us exactly how the Federal Government will be taken control of 1/6 of the economy. Take your time. Show your work. Use facts, not empty rants from right-wingers. If you are honest with yourself and with us, you will quickly realize that you were flat-out wrong in that paragraph. Will you apologize for getting it wrong?

Wasn’t it the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus preached the Gospel of the Free-Market Capitalism (according to his disciples Adam Smith and Ayn Rand), telling his flocks that if they are unhappy with their world, they need to buck up, pick themselves up by their bootstraps, and get to work for whatever meager wage the marketplace hands them. He reminded the poorest among them that the rich will always be with us, will inherit the earth (and everything on it), and that it is more like that a camel will pass through the eye of a needle than a bunch of lazy welfare cheaters will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Basically - you’re on your own, pal.
Oh, yeah. And here’s some bread.

See ten immediate benefits of healthcare reform below. The fact that there is no (very desirable) government option is strictly owing to unrelenting republican resistence for this very necessary benefit that extends coverage to 32 million Americans without healthcare.

Had republicans ever considered the needs of the general population over the needs of the massive healthcare insurance industry and big business, we'd probably have had a much better piece of legislation to begin with.

National healthcare has been a reality in Canada and throughout Western Europe for ages.....taxation rates for the wealthy in these social democracies is of course much higher. Life is more expensive in general.

Republicans are typically being disingenuous with their objections to healthcare reform. They spin it every which way as a populist issue, but the truth is, they're trying to protect their corporate constituents. And as usual, they have no alternatives other than repeal.

Frankly, it's always struck me as just a bit masochistic for middle class Americans to vote republican. Minorities are far more enlightened to the truth, politically speaking. You may not like democrats, but they seem to understand that ordinary voters have concerns and needs that are at least as important as the preservation of tax breaks for the affluent and sundry rich corporate interests.....all of whom do very well in the USA, given the benevolent taxation levels for the top financial tier.

If you have enough socked away to live off of corporate gains and stock dividends, you're living in tax break paradise. The objections to healthcare reform are vastly overblown - I predict it's here to stay, changes though there may be.

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/what-you-get-when-hcr-passes

"There is nothing moral about leaving more economy-destroying debt for future generations."

Agreed. But the underlying problem is Medicare and Medicaid. By not voting to repeal those programs, the house republicans showed their blatent hypocracy. Either the government addresses health care for all of they leave it to individuals for all. Taking on the most expensive portion of the population is not a sustainable strategy.

"While he may have a point about the moral implications of debt for future generations, he doesn't explain how the Administration and the CBO are wrong in predicting that health care reform will reduce the deficit."

The devil is in the details. CBO must make a great many assumptions in order to forecast. Since the funding mechanism for healthcare reform is under credible legal assault, they had to assume that it will pass Constitutional muster in the SCOTUS.

They also had to make assumptions about compliance with the law. For many that $200 fine for not complying will be a better route than buying the insurance.

This vote means nothing except for political theater. That said, it isn't bad theater. It puts an emphasis on who opposed this measure. The bill was designed to put the pleasure before the pain. This emphasis will make people remember who favored this bill when the mandated insurance bills land on their doorstep.

Why do you Huckabees rejoice after the House vote on ObamaCare?

Because, in your loving Christian hearts, you believe the poor, unemployed and children dieing for lack of health care is your personal Lord and Savior Jesus Christ's holy vengeance for their sloth, inability to find work in Bush's Depression, and their pre-existing conditions.

Do tell us of a "Christian Nation" where health care is socialism but spending trillions for entitlement programs for defense contractors via the endless Christian Oil Crusades is not.

Poor old Jesus.

A first step in stopping Obamacare.
Great win by the GOP for freedom.

And yes, I know that many other panelists at OnFaith address political questions. But unlike Sekulow, they make an honest attempt to show why someone of a particular religious persuasion might take one position or another on a political question. Even Sekulow's closest equivalent on this site, Cal Thomas, attempts to do so.

"Social conservatives" is a very generic term, and this entry by Sekulow seems almost overtly political and out of place in a site devoted to religious questions. While he may have a point about the moral implications of debt for future generations, he doesn't explain how the Administration and the CBO are wrong in predicting that health care reform will reduce the deficit. He may be right, but we shouldn't simply take his word for it or anyone else's. I won't defend or attack the health care reform here, but I will say that Sekulow is reaching to make a political stance sound like a religious one.

First of all, it is rude, nasty, ugly and mean-spirted to call the health care reform "Obamacare."

The health care reforms are ALL based on modification of the rules that regulate insurance companies, including, the requirement that everyone have health insurance. This is actually the conservative influence on the debate, and not what most progresseive or liberal people would have preferred, including Obama, himself.

If the conservatives truely want to block public spending on abortions in health care reform, that could have been easily accomplished with a public option, or a single-payer system; the Congress could simply pass a law forbidding tax money being spent on abortions.

With the complicated insurance subsidies that we ended up with, it is impossible to know which money goes where; there is a virtually infinite number of permutations, depending, on the age and sex of the insured (for instance, little boys would not be included in any of the abortion calculations, but payments to them would be included in the average of non-abortion payments), and depending upon the degree of subsidy of the insured, and depending upon the average payment per qualified insured of the insured's unsubsidized payment ... yada ... yada ... yada ... it is impossible to allow private insurance to allow abortoin with private money, but to forbid it with tax money, when all the different monies are blended in such a complex way for such complex pay-outs.

Whose fault it this? The ignorant stupid conservatives, who all along the way, insisted on this stupid complex system, and resisted any suggestions towards something simpler.

The fact is, rich conservatives take for themnselves, and seek to prevent others from having.

Social conservatives are worse than socialists and communists. They know better than you how your life should be run and dmmit they're going to get Big Government to force you to do it.

Sekulow, you parasite, as always you monsters are going to reach too far into our lives and we independents are going to throw you bums out in the next election.

You overreach will guarantee Obama a victory in 2012. I'd say thanks a lot, but that's not what I want.

I want you people to leave the rest of us alone. Get out of our pants, get your hands off our gonads, stop evesdropping on our conversations, on what we watch on tv, listen to on the radio, what music we buy, who we call friends ... there isn't any part of our lives you stinking monsters won't stick your ugly nose.

Sorry for the double.
I didn't realize it sometimes took 15 minutes to show up, and assumed I miss-hit.

Now that the House is done thumping their collective chest on this bill going nowhere, when do they begin serious debate on cutting big-ticket items like defense?

Now that they've beaten their chests on this going-nowhere vote, when do they start debating how to cut defense spending?