This Is Rock #8

I was watching videos of some bands. I discovered this song by the Talking Heads. I've never heard it before but I thought the song was beautiful. Kind of a hippie song though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNdMc6wGtU&feature=related

Hey Bud-D, have you ever heard of King Crimson? Jake recently discovered them and is totally in to their music. I think it is ok but I can only take so much.

Interesting Happenings

I was watching Monday Night Football the other night and something caught my eye. Or rather, my ear. An HP commercial featuring a Melanie song and a Microsoft commercial featuring a Donovan song appeared almost one after the other. While these two commercial soundtracks might mean nothing to the common MNF viewer, among Triomino enthusiasts they are very significant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5s1QNfXGn4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv-fbO-_xl0

I have not pin pointed the specific significance of these findings. I will have to seek the highest of my order to do so.

One more thing. I was searching for a picture for this post. I stumbled on some peculiar photos of what appears to be potential Triominauts who were otherwise unknown until now. Again, these are things only the highest of my order will be able to explain.

NPR fires Juan Williams for saying what he Thinks

National Public Radio fires Juan Williams, supposedly for saying on the Bill O'Reilly Show on Fox:

“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country,” Williams said Monday. “But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Wow.  An honest statement, that probably 90% of America would say, "yeah, me too", if asked.  I would bet that the vast majority of the ultra-libs that run NPR, if they are being honest with themselves, would agree with him.  But supposedly, this 'outrageous' statement got him branded a racist and fired by NPR. According to NPR 'CEO' Vivian Schiller:

controversial opinions should not come from NPR reporters or news analysts.

and followed that directive up with

Schiller said Williams' feelings about Muslims should be between him and "his psychiatrist or his publicist - take your pick."

Schiller apologized for the last comment later.

So, does anybody buy NPR's story regarding the firing?  I've watched and listened to Juan Williams for years on NPR and Fox.  He's certainly a liberal, but he isn't close-minded, and seems like a genuinely nice guy.  He wrote a universally acclaimed and famous book called "Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965" as well as a biography of Thurgood Marshall.

I think his statement on Fox was an excuse that Schiller used to fire him.  I suppose most people think that.  Williams' sin againts NPR and liberals in general is to appear on Fox.  Liberals hate Fox with a white-hot hate, because it has been critical in breaking through the media wall, which NPR itself is a gigantic part of, which has enabled liberals to control the media narrative for decades.  Williams' presence on Fox helps to legitimize Fox to open-minded liberals and blacks, something that cannot be tolerated by the Left, or their already-breaking-up media wall will completely collapse.

This may be just a coincidence, but leftist billionare and Rupert Murdoch/Fox-hating  George Soros donated $1.8 million to NPR on Monday, right before Williams was fired.

This may be another case of Leftists' intense hatred of conservatives forcing them into doing or saying foolish things.  The blatant bias shown in this firing is going to give Republicans a good chance to push de-funding National Public Radio, particularly in America's current anti-big government mood.  According to what I've seen, only 2% of NPR's budget comes directly from the government (ie taxpayers), but a whole bunch of it comes from member stations who also are publically funded.  It seems to me that this foolish firing is going to work out to be a coup for Fox and quite possibly a loss of funding for NPR...oh and also a coup for Juan Williams himself, who has just gotten a raise and more air-time from Fox in response to this incident.  Though I honestly believe that Williams is sad to leave NPR.

Texas Thinks it's Colorado in Atlas Shrugged

Rich Lowry in National Review points out that half of the new jobs created in the US in the last year were created in Texas:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 214,000 net new jobs were created in the United States from August 2009 to August 2010. Texas created 119,000 jobs during the same period. If every state in the country had performed as well, we’d have created about 1.5 million jobs nationally during the past year, and maybe “stimulus” wouldn’t be such a dirty word.

What does Austin know that Washington doesn’t? At its simplest: Don’t overtax and -spend, keep regulations to a minimum, avoid letting unions and trial lawyers run riot, and display an enormous neon sign saying, “Open for Business.”

Not only does Texas think they're better than everyone else, they really are better than everyone else. I'm sure the Nanny State Federal Gubmint will do their damnedest to shut down the Lone Star state.

I can't stand Texans' thinking their flat, hot, dusty state is so super awesome, but they back it up.

Ace of Spades writer thinks exactly like me, but Better

Ace of Spades guest writer Monty writes what I wish I could write.  This pretty much sums up all the problems Western Civilization has at once.  I'd like to quote the whole thing, but hopefully, you will read the article.  Ace of Spades HQ writers are normally pretty funny and irreverent when they're making their points, but this one is straight up serious.  A super awesome 'read the whole thing' link.

Just a couple of quotes:

Governments the world over are discovering that the river of money is not endless. That seemingly-inexhaustable mountain of wealth has been turned into an ocean of debt that will take decades to pay off. The spendthrift habits of the Western nations will put burdens on our children, and other generations not yet born, that should outrage us as a people. We are investing in the old rather than the young, and are punishing risk-taking and entrepreneurship rather than rewarding it. Our tax regimes seem to be deliberately crafted to kill innovation and long-term thinking. (What does "legacy" mean if the wealth I have accumulated in my life cannot be passed on to my children or heirs, but is instead eaten by the all-consuming government?) Young people -- young families -- are the foundation upon which Western Civilization is built. Neglect them, overburden them, cheat them, and you are committing societal suicide.

and

One measure of how self-destructive Europe has become can be seen in the birthrate. In developed countries like France, the birthrate among natives has plummeted to below the replacement rate (though some dispute this). Among immigrants who share little cultural affinity with the French (or are actively hostile to it), the birthrate has soared. What this means in 20 or 30 years is that what is "French" (or "English" or "American") will be determined by those same children. The same goes for Spain, for Portugal, for Germany, for England -- indeed, for the entire continent. (America at least has a positive population growth, albeit not by much. And our immigrants are also outbreeding the natives by a wide margin.) Demographics is a game of last man standing: the people who make the laws 20 or 30 years from now are the babies being born today. If you don't produce children, you have no voice in the future.

Not very cheery. But seeing the problem is a start in fighting it.

She's Back! Leader of the Free World puts the breaks on Multiculturalism

I'll give her a more dignified look this time. 

Via Hot Air, Angela Merkel says

“We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don’t accept them don’t have a place here,” said the chancellor.
“Subsidising immigrants” isn’t sufficient, Germany has the right to “make demands” on them, she added, such as mastering the language of Goethe and abandoning practices such as forced marriages.

Whoa! This is a German from post-Christian Europe saying this. Winds of Change?

Says Ed Morrisey at Hot Air:

Merkel’s speech may be one of the more important given by a Western leader in the last several years. It underscores that immigrants have a duty to assimilate if they want to live in another country, and that the receiving nation’s responsibilities do not include carving its nation or its laws into mini-models of the nations that the immigrants have left.

If she can make it happen, if she has the support of most Germans, this could be a real step towards sanity and a Post-PC world.

A Couple of Relevent Observations from Pre-Pussified/Socialized England

I forget what blog posted these comments, but they sure are good, and sure make you go "hmmm" when you see who said them and how long ago they must have said them:

“The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within…They come from a peculiar type of brainy people, always found in our country, who if they add something to our culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals.”


- Winston Churchill, on Leftists

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”


- C. S. Lewis

Response #1: Blasphemer Punished

Part 1 of my two part response to ToeJamm's 'The Bible is Questionable' post.

Alas, RTP&GGrs, ToeJamm's rant against The Bible has earned him his just desserts.  God has punished the wicked heretic, who dared to question the infallibility of the most important book written in the history of man (with the possible exception of Lord of the Rings).  The Inquisitor claimed on The Bible that ToeJamm dared to listen to the addled rantings of an apostate Jew, who already was a traitor to his own religion and now wished to corrupt Christians in theirs.

His penance shall be to recite the Nicene Creed to the tune of Led Zeppelin's Black Dog:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVHMrO-z0Og&ob=av2n

Are The Accepted Narratives Always Correct?

I decided to do a post on a topic that is usually not discussed on the blog and I am running out of new topics to discuss. One of the goals of this blog is to search out the truth and to debate our thoughts as to why we believe certain things. Another point of the blog is to point out false beliefs in the political realm: global warming, the problems with Keynesian economics etc. I am doing some examining of what I believe and working on a possible research project for school. I am no scholar and I can’t read the original language that the Bible is written in and I want to know more about where it came from, so I will admit that I could hold incorrect beliefs. I have been doing some reading on philosophy and examining the arguments of the Higher Critics of the Bible and I plan do some posts on the subject of philosophy and how it has influenced our modern day thinking and what the foundations of the socialist movement are. Could the accepted narrative or understanding of the Bible be incorrect much like the accepted or prevalent political, historical, and many other narratives are incorrect? When one looks at what is being taught is schools from grade school on up, there is a very selective historical, economic, political, scientific, and etc. narrative that is being used to advanced current political agendas--or put another way; a very large scale deception in many areas, not necessarily on purpose or by the design of anyone and probably due to a lack of interest for the truth in any subject, to include religion is being perpetuated on a large scale.

I have been examining the doctrine commonly know as the “Serpent Seed”. I looked up this topic and it is associated with the Christian identify movement and racism. I don’t know what the Christian identify movement is; but I do see how this doctrine or belief could be used to justify literal racism, but I do not take away any racist beliefs from this doctrine when it is fully understood: just like criticising Obama or being a tea party member does not automatically make one racist. The application of the word racism to this doctrine appears to be as inaccurately applied towards the serpent seed doctrine as it is towards the above mentioned area in politics-- the word racism is usually used to silence people.

The serpent seed is another explanation for what the narrative of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is. The prevailing and accepted view in the Christian community, Biblical scholars, and the Higher Critics is that the narrative of the events in the Garden of Eden state that sin entered the world through Adam and Eve’s disobedience of God's command--this is the concept of original sin, see the book of Concord Augsburg Confession Article II or the encyclopedia Britannica’s entry on original sin. This disobedience entailed being deceived by a snake into eating an apple or some fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God told Adam that he can freely eat the fruit of any tree in the garden except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Gen 2:16-17. The interpretations of this story depends on whether one takes it literally or as an allegory which is “a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another”. One's interpertation of these events is also determined if one goes into the original language of the Bible. According to how trees are used throughout the Bible and going back into the Hebrew for the word serpent, this narrative is to be taken as an allegory. What were these two trees? What was this serpent? What was the nature of this disobedience and what did it led to?

In the midst of the Garden their were two trees, “And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” (Gen 2:9) Trees are often used to describe people in the Bible. In Hosea 14:8 God states that He is like a green fir tree “Ephraim [shall say], What have I to do any more with idols? I have heard [him], and observed him: I [am] like a green fir tree. From me is thy fruit found". In Psalms 1:3 God states of a blessed man that,"And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper". Trees are also used to represent actual people as in Ezekiel 31 where God is asking who the Pharaoh king of Egypt who is like unto his greatness,

Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. The waters made him great the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. All the fowls of heaven made their nest in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters. The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty. I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches; so that all the trees of Eden that were in the garden of God, envied him. (Ezekiel 31:3-9)

According to the "Companion Bible", the word Assyrian is box cedar, a type of tree. The Assyrian is often used to represent a type for Satan--there is not enough space to explain this. Taking the Assyrian as Satan, according to the above passage Satan was physically in the Garden of Eden. The Bible often uses trees to represent or describe people. (Also see below about Gen 3:2 and what the word tree means: the back bone of the body or the spine.) In everyday usage people often use terms that are applied to trees to describe various parts of our bodies. What do people call their legs and arms? Limbs. What do we call our torso? Our trunk. The spine gives firmness to the body and holds it up right like that of the trunk of a tree. If you look at a depiction of the human nervous system it looks like a tree with all of the various branching nerves. So describing a person in terms of a tree is fairly common.

Who or what did the serpent represent? According to Revelation 12:9, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him”. The Devil has many names each signifying a different office or function that he performs. Of course we can branch this out some more. A good description of what the serpent was is provided in appendix 19 of the Companion Bible. This goes into the Hebrew and shows that the word serpent refers to an angelic being. According to Ezekiel 28: 12-17 Satan, the anointed cherub is a beautiful creature that was in the Garden of Eden--note Tyrus means rock in the Hebrew and represents Satan due to length I won’t further explain this. Also note in the above passages that it is very obvious that Satan is being discussed as he was the only Cherub that covered the mercy seat. According to 2 Corinthians 11:14 where Paul is warning about being deceived by false apostles “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light”. So it appears from the appendix above that the serpent was Satan. Satan is not some beastly-looking creature--this ideal originated in the middle ages, but according to the descriptions in the Bible he is beautiful angel of light.

The two trees were not literal trees but represented actual beings and the serpent was an angel of light. What was the sin in the Garden? What was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? According to Gen 3:2 Eve states that she was told by God to not partake of the fruit or touch the trees in the midst of the garden. The word tree that Eve was not to partake of means an opening and closing of the eyes and can be traced all the way back to the meaning of “the spine (as giving firmness to the body):--backbone”. (Click on the word tree and trace it back to 6096 and to 6095. This is the “Strong’s Concordance”.) Also check out the function that the spinal cord plays in the central nervous system. This same word tree is used numerous times throughout the Old Testament and is used when referring to a literal tree. But when referring to the particular tree of the knowledge of good and evil which represents an angel of light it has a more specific meaning: it imparted knowledge to Eve thorough the spinal cord or central nervous system. In Gen 3:3 Eve is telling the serpent that she was commanded by God to not touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Look up the word touch and one of its meaning is, “as an a primitive root; properly, to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphem., to lie with a woman).” Paul speaking 2 Corinthians 11 2-3 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so you minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” This word beguiled according the the Stong’s concordance is “to seduce wholly:--beguile, deceive”. One of the meanings of the word seduce in English means to induce to engage in sex. Eve eventually partakes of the fruit and gives it to Adam and he partakes and the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized they were naked and sowed fig leaves to cover themselves. (Gen 3:6-7) As a result of the serpent beguiling Eve; God states to the serpent that, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” God tell Eve, “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”. How does eating a fruit led to this? It appears that partaking of the fruit had something to do with a seed line and conception. Is this seed literal or spiritual? In Matthew 13:36-39 Jesus is explaining--not talking in a parable but explaining it--the parable of the sower to the disciples, “He answered and said unto them, ‘He That soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels”. (Note that the angels are the ones that will separate this seed and not man. So it would be inaccurate to use this as a reason to go after a certain people.) Check out the word seed which includes the male sperm. In John 8:44 Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees, “Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” Of course you have to read the whole chapter to put it into context. Look up the preposition "OF" in the Greek. It means out from. (Note that when the Jews were returning to Jerusalem from the captivity that very few Jewish priest returned. The priest line had been polluted. I won't cover this.) Who was the first murder mentioned in the Bible? Back in Genesis 4, Adam knows his wife and they bare Cain and Abel. It states that Cain came from the Lord. Or according to "The Companion Bible" "a man even Jehovah". It also states that she bare again Abel. The word again means to continue. Did she continue in labor? If so they were twins. It is a medical fact that a woman is capable of having twins that are each from different fathers, check it out. Cain ends up murdering Abel. Cain is not listed in Adam’s genealogy in Gen 5. So the sin in the garden was not simply eating some fruit. According to the Hebrew and other passages in the Bible it appears that this was an act between Eve and Satan that involved the producing of children and a seed line. The reason Satan wanted to beguile Eve was that God created the specific man Adam distinctly from the other peoples to serve as the seed line through which God would be born in the flesh. This is one of several attempts by Satan to derail this plan, Gen 6 being another. This explains the first prophecy in the Bible, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”. (Gen 3:15) The woman's seed led to Jesus and the Serpent's seed led to that certain people that cried out before Pilate for the crucifixion of Jesus. In Revelation, God is describing the various types of Churches and states that there were only two of them that he found no fault with. The two Churches taught who those are that blasphemy by saying they are Jews but do lie and are of the synagogue of Satan. (Rev 2:9) And in Rev 3:9, God talks about these same people in relation to the other Church he found no fault with. Who were these people?

Overall, it appears to me that one of the accepted or prevalent narratives of the Bible is not accurate nor does it tell the whole story: it is over simplified. There appears to be more to the Garden of Eden narrative than is widely taught. This makes a lot more sense to me than the traditional narrative of the sin in the Garden of Eden which states that a talking snake somehow deceived a woman into eating a forbidden fruit. I have yet to hear a better explanation which could be one. If accurate, this would not be any surprise as is the case in many areas the accepted narrative or prevailing view is inaccurate. (This post does not cover half of the topic, but is a basic overview of the subject.) This relates to politics in that the accepted view on things are not always correct and/or not the whole story.

Health Care Reform Update.

Health care reform was passed earlier this year and is having some unintended or intended consequences. I know health care reform might not be that be of a deal to some people, but these recent developments are a portent of things to come and eventually we all will be old and will be in need of quality health care. I believe that eventually that the government will be the only one of consequence providing medical care here in America and this will "fundamentally transform" one sixth of our economy, change the dynamics of our Country, and have a slow and creeping effect on the character of the American people that will make them look to the government to meet one of their vital needs. Other countries have a government run health care system and I am sure that things are all that bad in those countries. The service might be lower quality and there might be longer waiting times, but it won't be that big of a deal.

It looks like some health insurance companies are dropping child-only coverage due to the provision that insurance companies can't deny coverage to a child for a preexisting condition,

Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

Why would anyone put their child on a child-only policy and pay for it when they know that as soon as their child becomes ill they can simply enroll them into an insurance policy because they can't be denied? How are insurance companies supposed to pay for this? When this situation occurs, the insurance companies becomes providers of welfare and not insurance. The insurance companies can not continue to do business under these conditions. Who will?

College insurance plans might have to increase their premiums,

The two key areas of concern were whether student plans would be considered to meet the “minimum essential coverage” standard under the individual mandate, and whether the plans would be classified as individual or group plans in the insurance market. If the plans didn’t satisfy the minimum coverage standard, plans would need to improve their offerings (and become more expensive) to qualify, or students who opted for them would have to pay a tax required of anyone who declines the individual mandate. Plans classified as “'individual' are more expensive than group plans because the risk is not pooled.[...]ACE has yet to receive an official response from either the White House or the Department of Health and Human Services, other than a letter expressing their willingness to continue discussions on the association’s concerns.

And insurance companies in Connecticut will be increasing their premiums to comply with the new requirements under the new health care law,

The state's largest health insurer was granted rate hikes Friday that will be well over 20 percent for some plans, drawing sharp criticism from the attorney general.

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield in Connecticut requested a wide range of premium increases, which will take effect Oct. 1, to cover the costs of new benefits required by federal health reform. Higher prices mostly affect new members shopping for a health plan on the individual market rather than people who have group plans through an employer or some other organization.

It looks like some insurance companies are just exiting from the insurance business altogether,

The Principal Financial Group announced on Thursday that it planned to stop selling health insurance, another sign of upheaval emerging among insurers as the new federal health law starts to take effect[...] Other aspects of the health care regulations are worrying some state insurance commissioners, who fear that insurers are going to stop selling policies in some areas of coverage.[...] More insurers are likely to follow Principal’s lead, especially as they try to meet the new rules that require plans to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on the welfare of their customers.[...] Mr. Laszewski is worried that the ensuing concentration is likely to lead to higher prices because large players will no longer face the competition from the smaller plans. “It’s just the UnitedHealthcare full employment act,” he said.

The last part of the quote above points to the fact that this new health care law might be leading to a state created monopoly or at the least will create much less competition in the industry. This is all by design on the part of those who wrote the new health care law, see the video at the end.

McDonald's is considering dropping coverage to 30,000 of its employees because of the recent health care reform,

McDonald's Corp. has notified federal regulators its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers isn't compatible with a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, raising speculation about the fate of those employees' health coverage. Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans. The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.

It will really suck to be an uneducated or poor person in the coming decades in our Country as they will be the ones hardest hit form all of this "change". I might be incorrect, but it seems like a lot of companies are not hiring full time employees or they are cutting their full time employees to part time so that they don't have to provide them with benefits. It will be cheaper for most companies to not provide health care to their employees as the tax that will be imposed on them under the new health care law will be less than actually providing their employees with coverage.

And the recent health care law will increase the shortage of doctors,

The U.S. healthcare reform law will worsen a shortage of physicians as millions of newly insured patients seek care, the Association of American Medical Colleges said on Thursday.

It also looks like the Department of Health and Human Services is threatening private health insurance companies according to this opinion piece,

First, there are the heavy-handed statements coming out of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Two weeks ago, HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to the nation’s insurers with a plainly stated threat: Either the insurers conform to the political agenda of the administration and describe the reasons for premium increases in terms acceptable to the Democratic party, or they will be shut out entirely from the government-managed insurance marketplace. What could possibly have provoked a cabinet secretary to launch such an indiscriminate broadside against an entire industry? Simple: A handful of insurers had dared to utter the truth, noting that the new law has imposed costly insurance mandates that will raise premiums for everyone. For that offense, the federal government has essentially threatened to put the truth-telling insurers out of business. And what’s truly astonishing, and telling, is that the new law almost certainly gives the HHS secretary the power to do so if she really wants to.

Some people might look at these developments and say that the health care reform has had a lot of unintended consequences or that insurance companies or just plain evil. But keeping in mind the fact that the main supporters of this reform has stated that they wants a single-payer system and that there will have to be a transition period of about 15-20 years and part of the transition will include a public option, these developments seem to make a lot of sense. The public won't immediately support a single-payer system but if the insurance companies are made to look like the bad guy by being forced to deny or drop coverage to its customers because of basic laws of economics that won't be discussed here; then this will help create the support from the public for the government to do something to deal with the problem that was created by the government in the first place. It does sound like a very good plan to go about achieving the goals of those stated in the video above, I wish I could come up with plans that are half as smart as these. The fact is that the essence or fundamental aspects of health care reform will not be repealed by any party. How can any politician allow insurance companies to deny coverage to a child with a preexisting condition or take away the people's new right that was conferred upon them by the government? So the fact is, as I see it, that one day there will be no more evil insurance companies, or they will be insignificant, and we all will have high quality and free health care provided for by our loving government.