Yom Kippur

"In mercy and truth

Atonement is provided for iniquity;

And by the fear of the Lord one departs from evil."

Pr 16:6.

"And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath ^(for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him:

“The Lord has sworn

And will not relent,

‘You are a priest forever

According to the order of Melchizedek’ ” ),

^by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.

^

Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. ^ But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. ^Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

^For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; ^who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. ^For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, ^a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. ^For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; ^who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” ^But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. ^Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— ^not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. ^For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. ^None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. ^For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

^

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. ^For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary; ^and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, ^which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; ^and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services. ^But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance; ^the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. ^It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

^But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. ^Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. ^For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, ^how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? ^And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. ^For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.^ Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. ^For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, ^saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” ^Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. ^And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. ^For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; ^not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— ^He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. ^And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. ^For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. ^But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. ^For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,

But a body You have prepared for Me.

In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin

You had no pleasure.

Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—

In the volume of the book it is written of Me—

To do Your will, O God.’ ”

^Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), ^then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. ^By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. ^But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, ^from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.^ For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

^

ut the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,

^“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” ^then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” ^Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, ^by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh,^ and having a High Priest over the house of God, ^let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. ^Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. ^And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, ^not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching."

Heb 7:20-10:25.

A week or so ago, I contacted my Congressman Kurt Schrader. His office sent me a message back, telling me why he supports HR3200. Below is my response.

Mr. Schrader,

Thank you very, very much for responding to my email. I appreciate you sending me information about HR3200. My own reading of the bill is what prompted me to contact you.

I have very serious concerns about this legislation.
You wrote,

"In HR 3200, healthcare reform revolves around guaranteeing everyone a basic level of healthcare in America. Every new or modified health plan 4 years from now must cover hospitalization, outpatient care, doctors and other health professionals, equipment and supplies needed for physician authorized care, prescription drugs, rehab services, mental health services, preventative services, maternity care and well baby and child care (including dental, vision and hearing up to age 21). A broadly representative Health Benefits Advisory Committee chaired by the Surgeon General will develop the details of the basic services with public input. Everyone and every business must share in the cost of their own healthcare services except the extremely poor, generally those under 133 percent of poverty level (about $14,400 for an individual), or the very small business with a payroll under $500,000 (originally $250,000, amendments proposed have raised the level)."

Since I am a male and will never become pregnant, and my wife is unable to have children, why would our insurance be FORCED to cover "maternity care" and "baby and child care"? Why does my employer as well as our family have to pay for a mandate that WE WILL NEVER USE? Also, why would "every business" be forced to "share in the cost" of health insurance? Why not let the business decide if they want to offer health insurance? Businesses do not "share in the cost" food, clothing, nor shelter with their employees, yet these things are just as important, if not more so than health insurance.

You said,

In addition to Medicare, healthcare delivery in HR 3200 will be through three major options regulated by an overarching Health Exchange to make sure the system is working correctly and everyone is playing by the rules. Private insurance will still provide the bulk of healthcare access in the House Plan. After 10 years the Congressional Budget Office estimates that employer-based coverage does not change very much at 58 percent of health care coverage for Americans. Non-group and other health plans will cover 9 percent. A new "Public Option" will cover 10 percent and Medicaid/Chip 16 percent. Approximately 7 percent will remain uninsured including unauthorized immigrants and those choosing to opt out.

The CBO also estimated that HR3200 would cost $1.04 TRILLION over 10 years. So you are telling me that we are going to spend over a trillion dollars to cover only an additional 8% of America? Also, there is no enforcement mechanism in HR3200 to make sure illegal aliens are not covered by the new "public option." Not that they need it at any rate. The law already forces hospitals to treat anyone who comes in, for almost any reason. Moreover, many in Washington D.C. want to give illegal aliens amnesty, so whether HR3200 covers "illegal aliens" may be moot. In reality, hospitals and clinics are becoming overwhelmed by large number of largely poor illegal immigrants coming to receive free care.

You said:

All employers with a payroll over $500,000 must provide healthcare or pay a graduated payroll tax starting at 2 percent going up to 8 percent for higher payrolls. Very small businesses with 10-25 employees whose average wage is less than $20,000 to $40,000 will be eligible for up to a 50 percent tax credit to help them provide coverage. The employer is responsible for 72 percent of the cost for his employee or 65 percent if also covering the employee's family. The employee contributes the remainder. Employers may opt to get their insurance under the exchange or with another private plan. Private and public plans are allowed under the exchange.

Since health insurance often costs more than 8% of payroll (According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2005 the average percentage of payroll paid in health insurance costs was 11%), why wouldn't they simply drop their coverage and let the government pay for it? HR3200 WILL lead to a single payer system in the end. Please stop lying to us and tell us the truth.

Individuals can get employer-based healthcare through their employer as outlined above or get care on their own including through a public option provider. If an individual does not get health insurance he is penalized 2.5 percent of his adjusted gross income. "Affordability credits" will be given to people on a graduated basis with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty ($88,000 for a family of four), with non-employer based healthcare to help them pay for their share of their health insurance. Out of pocket expenses above the premium are limited to $5000 per individual and $10000 per family adjusted for the consumer-price-index.

So every single American will be forced to buy health insurance, with absolutely no provision to control costs? Since when do we in America punish personal choices in lifestyle? Surely this is not in keeping with the title of HR 3200, part of which includes the word "Choice."

The public option will be offered by 2013. It must compete on a level playing field with private plan choices. It will receive no taxpayer assistance other than a loan for start up costs which it has to repay over 10 years. It will have to negotiate its own rates (not tied to Medicare according to recent amendments), maintain reserves and pay its own administrative costs.

Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are also suppose to fund themselves. None have ever done so, and in fact, ALL of them are a great burden on our budget. Since there is nothing in HR3200 to control costs, how can you guarantee it will pay for itself? In truth, you cannot.

Childless, able-bodied poor adults (under 133 percent of the poverty level) are added to Medicaid with 10 percent cost sharing with the states (originally 7 percent). Medicaid and Medicare benefits are not reduced. Many efficiencies, productivity improvements and anti-fraud/waste measures are affected in the bill that save billions of dollars and provide better service for the individual, provider and insurer. The "doughnut hole" in Medicare prescription drug coverage is reduced $500 in 2011 and completely phased out by 2023. Asset tests are eased, application and reimbursement improved and physician Medicare payments elevated so that physicians can afford to take on senior Medicare beneficiaries. Training and transparency in nursing home care is made a priority as well.

So benefits are not reduced, payments to doctors are increased, income tests are "eased," and there will be more government oversight, and you are promising to "save billions of dollars?" Are you serious? Government can do many things, and does some things well. Reducing waste and fraud is not one of them. We have been promised for decades that fraud would be investigated and dealt with in Medicaid and it has not happened. Why would we think "this time things will be different"? Until fraud is ended in Congress itself (please start with Charles Rangel and his tax "issues"), Congress will be in no position to enforce "efficiencies, productivity improvements and anti-fraud/waste measures."

HR 3200 recognizes that improving access requires investments in adequate primary and care providers to handle the increased caseload. The House bill encourages graduate medical education, expands loan repayment provisions for the national health service corps, recognizes America's rural needs for healthcare professionals, not all of whom have to be physicians, promotes training in family, general internal and pediatric medicine, geriatrics, dentists, and physician and dental assistants and nurse practitioners. Scholarships and loan repayment programs are expanded for students aspiring to a career in primary care especially in underserved areas.

In fact, HR3200 includes the racist practice of giving preference in "medical education" to minorities, under the euphemism of "underserved areas." Please include incentives for ALL Americans, not just those who have a certain skin color.

Public health, community based health centers and school based health clinics are expanded. Preventative care strategies with evidence based results are to be developed. There will be no co-pay for preventative healthcare and primary care providers will be reimbursed for providing you care and information at 100 percent of the cost. Expanded delivery of public healthcare and preventative care are recognized as ways to curb the long term healthcare cost curve thereby reducing costs to individuals and the system as a whole while providing a healthier life.

These are lofty goals, but how will expanding payments help reduce costs?

Oregon should benefit from the emphasis on quality not quantity of care embedded in the bill. Oregon and some other states have historically been penalized in their reimbursement rates from the federal government for providing high quality, low cost care. Forty years ago the original Medicare system was based on the "fact" that healthcare just costs more in some states. That is simply not true in today's national and global economy. Dartmouth, OHSU and others can document Oregon gets only half the reimbursement of other high cost states that deliver poorer health outcomes at greater expense. An amendment to the base bill provides that over the next three years the federal government transition from a strict fee-for-service payment schedule to one that recognizes good outcomes. Oregon will also benefit from the emphasis on accountable care organizations, medical home delivery systems, pay for performance incentives, evidence based research on best procedures, medications and delivery systems because we are already pioneering in these areas.

I suppose gasoline should cost the same in Hawaii as it does in Oklahoma as well? It is false to claim that healthcare costs the same in all states simply because of the "national and global economy." There are far, far too many variables to make that kind of blanket claim. If the government attempts to centralize health care, it will be a disaster.

About half of the cost of the House healthcare bill comes from efficiencies in our current Medicare and Medicaid system as referenced earlier. The other is from a surcharge on those families earning over $350,000 adjusted gross income ($280,000 for an individual). It is estimated that the surcharge would apply to only the top 1.25 percent of earners today. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not responded favorably to the House Bill controlling long term costs. However, CBO has concerns that the bill as originally written actually increases long term costs given the improved access and subsidies given to individuals and businesses. CBO does not give credit in its formulas for the potential long term benefits of improved public health, preventative care, and moving to a quality based versus quantity based reimbursement methodology for providers. Nevertheless, the long term cost issues identified need to be addressed before final passage.

I trust the non-partisan CBO much more than Congress. They have no incentive to mislead people in order to garner support and votes. Also, why do we always ask the successful to bear a greater burden of the costs of societal programs? Why not equally share the costs among everyone? Better yet, why don't we ask those who make the most use of the services to ACTUALLY PAY FOR THE SERVICES THEY MAKE USE OF? If I buy a cell phone plan, would I ask people who are rich to pay for it? Why not?

As HR 3200 advances through the legislative process, I will follow it closely and take your concerns into consideration prior to any action.

Please do. I would urge you to vote "no" on this terrible legislation. Please start over, looking for ways to reduce prohibitive regulation to increase choice (not reduce it), frivolous lawsuits, and ending non-emergency medical services for illegal aliens.

Thank you again for contacting me and should you have any further questions or concerns, please contact my office by calling (202) 225-5711 or 1-877-301-KURT. To keep updated on my activities and to contact me through email, please visit my website at: www.schrader.house.gov.

Sincerely,

KURT SCHRADER

Member of Congress

Thank you for keeping me informed. I look forward to you rejecting this legislation and working on reforms that will actually reduce costs, while expanding choice.

Sincerely,

Robert Drouhard,

Salem OR.

Unfortunately when I sent this email, I got the message:
"Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain."

Obama's Speech Last Night

Last night the president put forth what was supposed to be his greatest case for his "plan" for health care reform. The speech was filled with lines tailor made for applause, idealistic rhetoric, and veiled attacks on basically anyone who disagrees with the "plan."

There were many, many lies in the speech. I wish to address two. He said,

"Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors."

This is an outright lie. His desire is to eliminate private health insurance. He is on tape saying so.

In 2003, at an AFL-CIO conference, Obama said,

"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."

Was he lying then, or is he lying now? The Whitehouse says the video is "cherry picked" and does not reflect the president's actual views. Where do you think Mr. Obama would be more honest, in front of the entire House and Senate and millions of skeptical citizens, or before a group of his most ardent supporters during a speech where he may or may not have known it would be put on the internet?

Second, last night president Obama said,

"Now, it is -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. "

No poll I have ever seen has been a majority, let alone a "strong majority." Rasmussen reported that 53% oppose his plan, and only 43% support it. According to opencongress.org (which everyone should use), only 20% of users support HR3200 (which is the only publicly available health care reform "plan").

Throughout the speech he spoke of the perils of "doing nothing," "meeting the challenge," and of "building the future." I thought I would help him out and make a couple posters he can use to spread his message: