Witch Doctory in Senate’s Health Care Plan.

ATHEISTS OPPOSE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE “FAITH HEALING” PROVISIONS IN HEALTH CARE REFORM BILLS

An Atheist public policy organization today called for elimination of requirements in Senate legislation which would reimburse faith-based “healers” for their services.

The Senate Finance Committee has taken up the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 which has an amendment titled “Religious Non-discrimination in Healthcare. The provision bans insurance companies from denying patients “benefits for religious or spiritual healthcare. Similar legislation, the Affordable Health Choices Act, has already cleared the U.S. Senate, and has a similar provision.

Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists, warned that the measure amounts to a public subsidy for certain religious groups.

“Any adult in the legislative or executive branch of the federal government, or of any state government, who wants to use unproven, unscientific ‘remedies’ should be free to do so,” said Buckner. “But support for such irrational nonsense violates the separation of religion and government and the canons of good sense. Including faith-healing or other non-medical ‘treatment’ in health care legislation must be rejected.”

Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists, said that Christian Science and other faith-based healers already receive public money, and that the policy is not based on good science.

“We need to spend that money on providing solid, fact-based medicine. Reimbursing the faith-healing industry wastes precious resources, and violates the separation of church and state.”

AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for Atheists; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First
Amendment public policy.
American Atheists, Inc.
PO BOX 158
Cranford, NJ 07016
Tel.: (908) 276-7300
Fax: (908) 276-7402

88 Responses to “Witch Doctory in Senate’s Health Care Plan.”

  1. Joe Zamecki joe zamecki says:

    Yep, that stinks. I’m glad AA is watching this so closely.

    Of course there’s a strong chance that any health care bill won’t become law anytime soon. It’s a bit sad too.

  2.  what says:

    Chiropractic coverage should be eliminated as well. Talk about faith healing!

    •  Boise Jim says:

      Have to strongly disagree with you on this one, what. I have had serious back and sinus issues for most of my life. The only relief I’ve ever had was with my current chiropractor. I used to have debilitating sinus headaches that would render me useless. As long as I see my chiro., they have just about disappeared. I went from having three or so a week, to having 1-2 a month.

      Also, x-rays showed I had a crooked pelvis (out of alignment, most likely caused by an injury). Well, he fixed that, too.

      •  what says:

        Boise Jim

        To elaborate I have had back problems for a couple of years as well. Sciatica. It comes and goes following a bicycling accident. Sometimes it prevents me from running for weeks. So I swim and walk instead for exercise. Point is it comes and goes. Yours comes and goes? No surprise. I’m sorry you suffer.

        Chiropractic coverage will be seriously limited in the future because, anecdotal testimony aside, it is rarely indicated and usually of limited to no effect. Obama was spot on when he suggested a system wide review of what treatment is known to be effective. Getting rid of effective treatment is an extremely important component to health care cost reduction. Let the science decide.

      •  Boise Jim says:

        Apparently you’ve never seen a good Chiropractor, because both my wife and I had horrible sciatica pain, and now it’s mostly gone.
        If you’ve seen the before and after x-rays of my spine, you may also be convinced. Say what you will, but when I went from a crooked spine to a straight one, thanks to his help, that’s proof enough for me.

        I admit, I’ve been to really bad chiropractors, but there are some great ones out there.

      •  what says:

        Boise

        That is the usual course for sciatica. Most folks usually
        “recover” from the initial disk injury within 3 to 6 months. This is largely the case with or without surgery (recommended in severe cases only like Cauda Equina Syndrome for example). However, the disk does not regain full structural integrity and one can expect the problem to resurface years later. The chiropractor stands ready to take credit and your money just about when you are fed up and feeling desperate for relief – at about 3 to 4 months post injury.

      •  what says:

        Also. I have seen plenty of spine films.

      •  Boise Jim says:

        OK. Then explain why it’s five years later and everything is still fixed, and we are still mostly pain free, compared to before?

        I know it’s hard for you to accept, but my Chiropractor has been a huge asset in my well-being, and I have less pain because of him.

      •  what says:

        Boise

        As I already mentioned above your case is typical: initial injury followed by gradual recovery over a few months and then symptom free for a few years. But if you did indeed have sciatica, due to intervertebral disc prolapse or rupture, the problem usual returns because the disc only recovers part of its initial mechanical strength. Just a matter of time. Doing daily back exercises really helps extend that time. Chiropractors know this is usual course of the injury/disease and prey on those that are afflicted.

  3.  geoih says:

    Of course, you could eliminate this problem by just having everybody pay for their own health care (like we do with food, shelter, clothing, etc.). Then, you wouldn’t have to worry about what was “approved” by some politician or bureaucrat, because people could spend their money however they wanted, no matter how wasteful or effective.

    •  what says:

      Eliminate what problem? Perhaps you mean the millions of people who can’t afford care, whether through an insurance company or out-of-pocket, who wind up in the emergency room, where they can not be turned away, to receive very costly care which we all pay for through higher costs? Idiot. Pay attention.

      •  geoih says:

        The issue in this thread is what qualifies as medical care, not who does or doesn’t have insurance. Maybe you should read the initial post before jumping to name calling and showing your lack of intelligence.

        Apparently, you don’t think this is a problem, so you shouldn’t have a problem with paying for other people’s “faith-healing”.

      •  what says:

        You are a moron. You made it about a much wider topic when you stated that “you could eliminate this problem by just having everybody pay for their own health care”. Idiot.

  4.  AgentChaos says:

    I agree with you, but what’s actually stopping people from doing this right now? Everyone is free to go to the doctor, get their service and pay at the window. Why is it that the great majority of Americans think someone else should provide their healthcare? I agree that voodoo should not be covered, but I wouldn’t stop there. Why does anyone have the right to take someone else’s money, time and talent to provide them a service that they are responsible for themselves? The government is simply acting as the broker for taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers.

    •  Sago says:

      You are right, nobody has a right to demand that anybody else has to provide their health care.

      But what I really want to hear from you is that the poor suckers should be left to die in the streets, and that you don’t want to have your tax funded garbage pickup remove them either.

      You sound like somebody working for either a company or government organization with full insurance coverage and a typical entitlement attitude, which of course you cannot see in in yourself.

      Get real, try to imagine you live in a society where people depend on each other, and do so as an atheist.

      • But what I really want to hear from you is that the poor suckers should be left to die in the streets, and that you don’t want to have your tax funded garbage pickup remove them either.

        & Sago scores! Nice 1.

      •  Sago says:

        New as I am, I will have to try to remember to be gentle with you, if called for. :)

      •  Weak says:

        What in the world are you talking about? “Die in the streets”??? There is nobody dieing in the streets. This isn’t about health care. First, we already have free healthcare, its called, medicare/medicaid. Second, anybody who is sick in this country can get health service/treatment at emergency rooms, its the law. If it was only about healthcare, take 40 billion of the stimulus that hasn’t been spent yet (only about 10 -25% has) and insure the uninsured for two years. No, too easy, because that is not what it is about. It about buying votes for the next 8 years.

      •  what says:

        Weak-minded

        How old are you. Twelve? After all that has been said about the health care imperative these last few months you still have learned nothing about what the basic problem is. Awed.

    •  teammarty says:

      I don’t see why you all are arguing about healthcars since we are not getting any anyway. We might be forced to pay for it but it will be worthless. We would have better off with McSame. At least not 10,000 dollars in debt to the Death Panel industry.

  5.  gary Mueller says:

    and why should we be asked to pay for roads we don’t use? People should just pick a destination, hire a construction crew and pave a hi way from their home to wherever.
    Healthcare is not a luxury item, something to be attained because you pulled yourself up by the bootstraps, healthcare is the right of a human to receive the technology to stave off disease through preventative medicine and cure or aid in the recovery of the infirmed from injuries and disease.
    Just as we pay for the military to protect us from enemies imagined and real, healthcare costs should be shouldered by collective means in order to sustain human equality and right of good health.

    •  geoih says:

      “healthcare is the right…”

      Where does health care come from? I’ll help you. It comes from people. Doctors, nurses, etc. People. So what you’re saying is that you have a right to enslave these people to provide you with your health care “right”.

      The point is, health care cannot be a right, unless you think that enslavement of others is also a right. You have no right to health care anymore than you have a right to the farmer’s crop, the tailor’s cloths, or the landlord’s roof.

      •  godless sodomite says:

        Im glad to see other Libertarians in here who get it. Healthcare is not a right just as government provided food, clothing, and shelter are not rights. I have seen the absolute nightmare of a failure that the NHS (National Health Service) is in the UK and dont want it here. People pulling out their teeth with pliers because they cant get in to see a dentist or people dying while on waiting lists for surgery. No way.

      •  what says:

        Don’t conflate government run health care (UK system) with government run health insurance (the rest of the wealthy countries except the US).

      •  what says:

        Heal thyself of thine mythology affliction:

        http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427

  6.  AgentChaos says:

    I understand the “general welfare clause” that would constitute paving highways. I would also understand universal ‘insurance’ if there were a more balanced approach to taxation to pay for it. However, under the current system it will become a political weapon and will be payed for by the minority of producers. If it is a “right”, then it should be a “right” for everyone. Those who pull themselves up by their own bootstraps should not have to provide it for someone else. They should have it provided for them as well. If I pay for your healthcare then I’ve forfeited my right to it so that you could exercise your right to it. You don’t have a right to my money or healthcare. You have a right to provide your own. Furthermore, in order for you to have a right to healthcare, then you must also have a right to a physicians time, thus limiting his rights to use his time for his own benefit. You don’t have a right to his time. Finally, you would have to be given a right to his services, which would limit his right to serve at his choice. Who establishes the right for someone, including the government, to take someone else’s money, time, and talent to serve their need. I know the inherent rights idea is not applicable on this site, but it is applicable in our country and healthcare is not an inherent right according to the constitution. Unless, of course, the burden of providing for it is equally distributed, which is not going to be the case.

    •  what says:

      Nobody pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps. You sure do love your mythology.

    • Talking gibberish, I see.

      Those who pull themselves up by their own bootstraps should not have to provide it for someone else.

      Hope you don’t have kids.

      If I pay for your healthcare then I’ve forfeited my right to it so that you could exercise your right to it.

      WTF are you talking about?

      You don’t have a right to my money or healthcare.

      Keep your money, but your physician isn’t exclusive to you only, correct?

      You have a right to provide your own. Furthermore, in order for you to have a right to healthcare, then you must also have a right to a physicians time, thus limiting his rights to use his time for his own benefit.

      Wow, for a religious guy, you sure are a selfish prick.
      Do you have a library card? I shouldn’t have to pay for that. You’ve forfeited your right to it, because you didn’t pay for it by yourself. Do we share the freeways? You should buy your own freeways, & private streets.
      Hopefully you’re bright enough to grasp the point.

      •  AgentChaos says:

        Good grief.
        -They are my kids. I’m responsible for them. I’m not responsible for you.
        -Some will pay for it and some won’t. If it were a right to all then none would have to pay more than someone else. I would encourage you to take an economics class. It is impossible for us to continue to tax some to pay the benefits of others and not go bankrupt. Some will pay for themselves and someone else and some will pay for none. That is not the point of the general welfare clause of the constitution.
        -I’m not keeping my physician to myself, I’m saying that you don’t have a right to the physician himself. You have to take his freedom in order to mandate that he treat you. You have no right to him and his service. He does.
        -I’m not opposed to the common good like highways and libraries which equally benefit every person, I’m opposed to taking from one by force to give to another. Constitutionally we were intended to be a country that raised government revenue by excise and trade taxes without an income tax. The income tax system will destroy us.
        -I’m not selfish. I’m happy to help all kinds of people. I’m just opposed to the government forcing me to be charitable to the causes they deem worthy, especially the ones that they buy votes with.

      • -They are my kids. I’m responsible for them. I’m not responsible for you.

        My point was, that they aren’t ‘bootstrapping’. You’re helping them. Why? Because they’re immediate family.
        Way I see it, everybody in the human race is immediate famitly.

        -Some will pay for it and some won’t. If it were a right to all then none would have to pay more than someone else. I would encourage you to take an economics class. It is impossible for us to continue to tax some to pay the benefits of others and not go bankrupt. Some will pay for themselves and someone else and some will pay for none. That is not the point of the general welfare clause of the constitution.

        This is a huge problem in this country. We have the very best medical care, but it’s also horribly expensive. People are getting care in accordance to their payscale. Tell me that’s okay. It ain’t.

        -I’m not keeping my physician to myself, I’m saying that you don’t have a right to the physician himself. You have to take his freedom in order to mandate that he treat you. You have no right to him and his service. He does.

        That’s a little clearer. He’s rendering services, not ‘surrendering freedom’.

        -I’m not opposed to the common good like highways and libraries which equally benefit every person, I’m opposed to taking from one by force to give to another. Constitutionally we were intended to be a country that raised government revenue by excise and trade taxes without an income tax. The income tax system will destroy us.

        The income tax is 1 of the venues that supports highways & libraries. Further, it could be argued that general good health is taken by force from the lower % of the poor, only it’s done by the dollar not the gun.

        -I’m not selfish. I’m happy to help all kinds of people. I’m just opposed to the government forcing me to be charitable to the causes they deem worthy, especially the ones that they buy votes with.

        You’re telling me people should get in to see a doctor, but if the costs are prohibitive, they should die in agony. That’s fucked up, it’s selfish as hell.

      •  AgentChaos says:

        Your sense of social justice and selflessness sure seems to smack of a religious foundation.

      •  what says:

        Or a genetic tendency to be empathetic. Atheists, even KA, don’t need religion to display natural empathy.

      • Atheists, even KA, don’t need religion to display natural empathy.

        Why thank you, what (I think?).

      • Your sense of social justice and selflessness sure seems to smack of a religious foundation.

        Really?

  7.  LightningLucci says:

    “The provision bans insurance companies from denying patients “benefits for religious or spiritual healthcare.”

    Does someone have examples of what “religious” or “spirtual” healthcare we are talking about?

    Does this include alternative treatments such as acupuncture, hypnosis, etc.? Basically, I’m thinking of those “mind over matter” types of treatments which I guess can be considered “spirtual”. I can see (but am not making…) the argument for preventing insurance companies from banning payment for these types of services.

    Or are we just talking about faith healers? You know, laying hands on one’
    s head and saying “Allelujah! You’re healed. Now fill out this insurance form…”

    •  Tea Tie says:

      Lightning, here’s an excerpt and link to an article from TIME May, 2009

      “Of course, they wouldn’t call themselves “faith healers.” They argue that the term dismisses what they do as simple wishful thinking. But practitioners of Christian Science as well as other alternative therapies — including acupuncture, biofeedback, herbal medicine, holistic medicine and Reiki, a Japanese healing and relaxation technique — are intent on influencing the coming health-care-reform process. “We’re advocates for people who want access to spiritual treatment,” says Phil Davis, a Christian Science practitioner and his church’s chief lobbyist. Their goal is to encourage Congress to think of health care as more than just medical care — and to allow insurance companies to provide coverage for their holistic treatments.”

      http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1897498,00.html

    •  atheist_republican says:

      It would also be the foot in the door for any number of Scientology’s schemes.

  8.  reason says:

    Good work AA.
    We have had universal healthcare since the late 1940′s when federal law made it illegal to deny care.Yet we never created a logical way to fund it and i fear when the deal making is done i will be paying more for my policy.

  9.  dw says:

    Where will it stop? Will a haitian immigrant who enlists the aid of a voodoo doctor for the purposes of hexing someone have his health insurance pay?

  10.  kwame says:

    Do you have any examples of a “faith healer” that received payment for services from the government? Ive never heard of that before and have a feeling that this concern is unfounded.

  11.  Treehouseonmars says:

    Public health is a public benefit. Sick people are a
    threat and/or a drain on the public.
    Draw your own conclusions, free thinkers

    •  AgentChaos says:

      Wouldn’t the natural elimination of the sick and weak be more consistent with the evolutionary process than trying to sustain them? Perhaps letting the sick die is most beneficial to the progress of the species.

      •  what says:

        And perhaps we should get rid of modern sanitation. AgentChaos, eat shit.

      • Like most religious posters, you suffer from the misconception that evolution is some prime directive or religious tenet. It’s not. We are the 1st species that has control of its own evolution. It is not all about the strongest, the prolific, the quickest. The sick & the weak can contribute to the well-being of the collective.
        As an example, Stephen Hawking.

      •  AgentChaos says:

        Hey, I like Stephen Hawking, especially “God Gave the Integers”, but you’re convictions are failing you. Your beginning to sound like a philosopher KA. If we have control of our own evolution, then where are we headed?

      • but you’re convictions are failing you.

        Really? You don’t know enough about me to make that observation.

        Your beginning to sound like a philosopher KA.

        As opposed to what I sounded like before…?

        If we have control of our own evolution, then where are we headed?

        Well I’m a transhumanist. Anything that can help improve the species is all right in my book.

      •  jcc says:

        We are the 1st species that has control of its own evolution.

        What a load of crap. In the Darwinian sense, any tool-using species, by definition, “controls it’s own evolution”…who’d have thunk Mole Rats are well on their way to becoming the next big-brained, bipeds?

        I’m a transhumanist.

        A “Transhumanist?” Let me guess, your astounding intellect has propelled you alone to the inevitable, next phase of super-humanity. Too funny.

      • In the Darwinian sense, any tool-using species, by definition, “controls it’s own evolution”…who’d have thunk Mole Rats are well on their way to becoming the next big-brained, bipeds?

        Well, I’d expect no less from someone who lives in a comic book world.
        It’s not just the tools, but the use of them.

        Let me guess, your astounding intellect has propelled you alone to the inevitable, next phase of super-humanity.

        Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities.
        How does that translate to you?

      •  AgentChaos says:

        KA: you are thinking in circles. Are you an atheist or aren’t you. Cut the crap about the benefit of society. If atheism is true, then you’ll be dead in a short while and nothing you do or did will matter or has any purpose. The fact that you judge others for their values is a betrayal of your supposed convictions. My dear Wormwood, you must free yourself from your “conscience”. You’re dereligiousindoctrination is obviously going to need a lot more work.

      •  what says:

        No wonder you have turned to religion. You are apparently genetically deficient with respect to empathy.

      • KA: you are thinking in circles. Are you an atheist or aren’t you. Cut the crap about the benefit of society. If atheism is true, then you’ll be dead in a short while and nothing you do or did will matter or has any purpose.

        Awww…isn’t that cute? I’m destroying poor little AgentPathos’ preconceived stereotypes. Ain’t it fun when that happens.

        The fact that you judge others for their values is a betrayal of your supposed convictions.

        WTF are you talking about? Everybody judges others for their values. You’ll need to extrapolate on the gibberish there.

        My dear Wormwood, you must free yourself from your “conscience”. You’re dereligiousindoctrination is obviously going to need a lot more work.

        Dude, I just don’t believe in the supernatural. The supernatural doesn’t do anything, because it isn’t real. It doesn’t impart morals, empathy, or any of those other attributes. In fact, religion really isn’t responsible for anything @ all. People are responsible.
        & you religious folk wonder why we’re all so cranky. You stereotype us, you fit us into some pariah label(s), you caricature us, you strawman us. You tell us what we think, what we feel, what we do, & when we disagree? You tell us the same shit over & over again.
        It’s aggravating.

      •  AgentChaos says:

        I don’t have a stereotype that atheists lack empathy. I have an observation that atheist are hypocrites and borrow from theist and pantheist worldviews when their own doesn’t work any more. The only consistent atheistic philosophy is, “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” I sincerely feel sorry for you all, but I’ve realized the limits of your abilities to reason. I’ll take my leave. Psalm 53:1 & Proverbs 28:26

      • I don’t have a stereotype that atheists lack empathy. I have an observation that atheist are hypocrites and borrow from theist and pantheist worldviews when their own doesn’t work any more.

        Wait – ‘our own’? You mean humanity’s. Sorry, that’s something nobody has the exclusive copyright on. Where did anyone ‘borrow’ anything? Obviously you’re laboring under a stereotype, that we got ‘nothing’.

        The only consistent atheistic philosophy is, “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

        That’s a stereotype, & a particularly ugly 1 too.

        I sincerely feel sorry for you all, but I’ve realized the limits of your abilities to reason.

        Christlation: “Uh, you guys make too much sense & you’re more human than I was told, so I’m running the fuck away & declaring victory while I’m doing that.”
        No reasoning w/the irrational, I always say.

      • I have an observation that atheist are hypocrites and borrow from theist and pantheist worldviews when their own doesn’t work any more.

        This sort of codswallop irritates the hell outta me.
        You can’t ‘lend’ or ‘borrow’ something that everyone possesses, & in the case of something that’s not concrete, that’s reification.
        Empathy, love, caring, all those good, strong, human emotions? Those don’t belong to any one group, any one tribe, any one elitist club. They are everyone’s birthright.
        Supernatural bullshit need not apply. & it doesn’t. I don’t need a church, a gawd, a spirit guide, to possess these attributes. They come w/the biology.

      •  jcc says:

        So Doug, if you’re gonna continue cowardly covering your tracks by deleting your own painfully embarrassing remarks like:

        We are the 1st species that has control of its own evolution.

        from your 10/6 @ 7:09 post, don’t you think, for consistency, you should delete it from my post too? Either that hasn’t occurred to you, or by some twisted sense of “honor” you don’t want to be accused of vandalizing other people’s posts again.

        Either way, when are you gonna man-up, grow a pair and start taking responsibility for the hare-brained remarks you make by issuing mea culpas, or, at the very least, an apology instead of sneaking around in the dark of night trying to erase your idiocy?

      • from your 10/6 @ 7:09 post, don’t you think, for consistency, you should delete it from my post too? Either that hasn’t occurred to you, or by some twisted sense of “honor” you don’t want to be accused of vandalizing other people’s posts again.

        WTF are you talking about? You’re accusing me of deleting a post that’s still there?

        Either way, when are you gonna man-up, grow a pair and start taking responsibility for the hare-brained remarks you make by issuing mea culpas, or, at the very least, an apology instead of sneaking around in the dark of night trying to erase your idiocy?

        Again, huh? What? You must be imagining things.

      •  jcc says:

        My most humble of apologies. That quote was from the post previous to the the one I mistakenly accused you of altering. I was wrong and shouldn’t have made such an accusation.

      • My most humble of apologies.

        You know I’m a pretty forgiving guy, but it seems like you’re trying to goad me into doing something…

        That quote was from the post previous to the the one I mistakenly accused you of altering. I was wrong and shouldn’t have made such an accusation.

        Seriously, all acrimony & sarcasm aside, you need to take a vacation from this. It’s just a blog. Obsessively hunting thru archives isn’t a good sign. Neither is saving threads to your hard drive. & lately you’ve been hounding me – if you’ll note, 9 outta 10 times I respond to others, you chip in.

        (As an side, I do alter my posts on occasion, but only if I misspoke, left out a word, or goofed up on syntax or spelling. But the content remains the same.)

  12.  LightningLucci says:

    I’ve tried to write the Atheist’s Bible, but I kept getting stuck after writing the first sentence.

    •  LightningLucci says:

      That was supposed to be a response to KA’s 3:18 post.

      Bah.

    •  AgentChaos says:

      The first sentence must be, “In the infinite past nothing became something….” Ummm. Gee, I see the problem:)

      • Define “nothing”. I’m pretty sure that nobody says “nothing became something”. It’s a caricature, & pretty insulting too.

      •  AgentChaos says:

        Well then, what did become something? Where did the original matter that improved into organic life contrary to scientific possibility come from? If not God, then what? I admit that it’s impossible for it to be nothing, but I’m not the atheist.

      • Well then, what did become something?

        There was a universe prior to the Big Bang.

        Where did the original matter that improved into organic life contrary to scientific possibility come from?

        They’re still working on that 1, but I’ll bet the rent it wasn’t a sprinkling of pixie dust.

        I admit that it’s impossible for it to be nothing, but I’m not the atheist.

        Define ‘nothing’. Show me something’s that’s ‘nothing’.

      •  what says:

        AgentChaos

        Hey twit. With respect to your gawd delusion it wouldn’t matter if we didn’t know what happened yesterday let alone what happened at the beginning of the universe (if there was one). Your gawd has not happened.

      •  dw says:

        What does this have to do with witch doctors getting paid by insurance companies.
        Agentcahoot, if you are able to conceive of a god existing for eternity, then you are surely able to conceive of a Universe that existed in one form or another for eternity, even if it has gone through being a pinpoint, exploding, or as it is now, over and over. The insertion of a god is unnecessary.

    •  Sago says:

      What was the first word?

      •  Jaydave says:

        So in your version Agent you ave something coming from nothing also !! Your Gawd !! So if you beleve gawd created the universe where did it(gawd) come from ? So your stating your all powerfull gawd created himself first FROM nothing then created everything else ?? WOW thats something coming from nothing isnt it ??

      •  dw says:

        If there was anything around when the big bang occurred it would have said, “What have I done now?!”

      •  what says:

        First word: Forty. Second word: two.

  13.  reason says:

    The gov’t has another unemployment rate that doesn’t get on media called u-6 it pegs unemployment at 17% for september this doesn’t include discouraged ex workers estimated at around 4%.That is 21% who can’t pay taxes to support public health insurance like medicaid/medicare and who at best will struggle to buy private for themselves.This system is crashing the factory,service jobs that used to provide coverage have been sent overseas or given to h1-b workers.Then you have the illegals getting [free for them]care.We might as well put the hemlock society in charge of our health care system.

  14.  reason says:

    The number one priority must be jobs, without them you can’t have buyers of insurance or taxpayers to fund public safety net.

    •  what says:

      They must both be high priority.

      Isn’t this a lovely world the Reaganites have left us? The asshole party is toast!

      •  reason says:

        Deregulation began under Carter and Democrats.Both parties have messed things up.Good people in both parties must leave them instead of letting them pit americans against eachother like some football game.
        I am glad to see 80,000 new yorkers call for a new 911 investigation.We could have taken bin laden at tora bora and our forces were denied the resources they requested by Washington now does that make sense?Would IKE or FDR have let someone accused of killing 3,000 americans get away, heck no!Something smells fishy.

      •  Weak says:

        The government doesn’t create jobs. The private sector creates jobs. If
        Reagan didn’t make it worthwhile for private companies to create jobs, no one would have a job right now.

      •  what says:

        Weak

        Government doesn’t create jobs? Really, how stupid do you have to be to write that?

      • The government doesn’t create jobs.

        Try that 1 on your postman, & see the reaction.

  15.  Sago says:

    I suggest that anyone who posts about health care issues first states their exact status. You know, can’t afford it, have the greatest in the world (and through who. EG government, union, whatever), or has massive deductibles, or is too young or dumb to worry about such stuff.

    Any suggestions for abbreviated category names?

  16.  Sago says:

    And as I’m calling it a night, I should put my words where my mouth is. I pay through the nose as privately insured, get ripped off with 3 times inflation every year, have a large deductible that has never cost the insurance companies a dime, and I have no doubt they will try to screw me if it ever does.

    And my premiums subsidize all those who think they are being independent souls (or just poor, or parasites) by relying on someone else to pay for their care if they need it.

    I don’t deny them that care; but I do call out their hypocrisy if they don’t recognize that fact.

    I’ll try to stick to religion and AGW next time. Goodnight.

  17.  toms says:

    The only consistent atheistic philosophy is, “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”???

    Eat, drink and be merry reasonably; the cops have the jailhouse keys.

  18.  Weak says:

    What says “Government doesn’t create jobs? Really, how stupid do you have to be to write that?”

    Howe can the government create jobs without taking money from someone else? They don’t produce anything.

    • They don’t produce anything.

      Besides red tape? Regulating import/exports? Freeways built & maintained? Libraries? Laboratories?
      Are we talking Federal or State? Trust me: they BOTH produce bundles.

    •  what says:

      Weak-Minded

      How does the private sector create jobs without taking money from someone else? Man you are dense.