Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Authored By  :
Published On :
Last Updated :

NOTE: This article or series has not been updated recently. As such, it may possibly contain some outdated information, and/or ideas and beliefs which I no longer embrace, or which have changed to some degree.



In this article I will be discussing one particular aspect of controversial House Bill H. R. 3590, which is commonly known to most Americans as the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or simply Obamacare. Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, this health bill underwent some highly publicized legal challenges. However, despite some strong objections, it eventually received a green light from the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28, 2012, when the constitutionality of most of the PPACA was upheld by the Court.

Due to certain information which has been widely propagated on the Internet in recent months -- particularly as the U.S. presidential election draws closer -- I decided to have a closer look myself. Thus, I downloaded and examined several versions of this Act; that is, H. R. 3962, which is dated October 29, 2009, H. R. 3590, which is dated December 24, 2009, and a second version of H. R. 3590 which is dated the 5th of January, 2010.

This bill is a rather lengthy, complex document. The October 2009 version consists of 1,990 pages; the December 24, 2009 version consists of 2,409 pages, and the January 2010 version is considerably shorter with just 906 pages. Along with the last version, I also download H. R. 4872 which is titled the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Most people will not have the time or the interest in reading the act in its entirety. I most certainly don't, and didn't.

From my online research, and from examining the contents of each version, I have determined that H. R. 3962 is the House of Representatives version which was called the Affordable Health Care for America Act. It was passed by the House of Representatives on November 7, 2009. Bill H. R. 3590 is the Senate's version which is called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It was passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009. Finally, Bill H. R. 3590 of January 5, 2010 is the version which was actually signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010 after the House and the Senate hammered out their differences. H. R. 4872 -- that is, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 -- is a major amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

First of all, for the record, let me clarify that the actual words "biochip", "microchip", "implant" and "implantable" do not appear anywhere in any of the versions of the bill that I have in my possession. They do not appear in the official, certified version of the bill which was signed by President Obama. According to Internet rumors, the word "implantable" was supposedly included in earlier versions of the bill that contained sections dealing with certain medical devices. Even if that is true -- I do not know that it is -- such language is not included in the official version of the bill that was signed into law by President Obama, and that is what counts insofar as legality is concerned.

The word "computer" is used one time in House Bill H. R. 3962 in reference to assisting a number of American territories in upgrading their computer systems, so that they will be able to comply with the new reporting requirements which have come into effect under Obamacare. In the Senate-passed version of H. R. 3590, the word "computer" is mentioned a total of eight times in regards to assisting different entities in upgrading their computer systems so that they will be compliant with, and will be able to carry out the different services which are mandated by the PPACA, including proper reporting. The official, certified version of the Act also uses "computer" a total of nine times in reference to this same topic.

The second point I wish to make is that while the acronym CHIP is used extensively throughout H. R. 3962 -- beginning at Title VII -- as well as throughout H. R. 3590, CHIP is not really referring to any kind of implantable RFID chip. In reality, the acronym CHIP refers to the Children's Health Insurance Program, which is a program which provides free or low-cost health coverage for over seven million children -- both U.S. citizens, as well as eligible immigrants -- up to the age of nineteen. If you are interested in learning more about CHIP on the Internet, you can go to such sites as the following one:

https://www.insurekidsnow.gov/chip/index.html

While the acronym CHIP is not specifically referring to a physical microchip or biochip implant of any kind, as I will explain in a moment, I still have some guarded reservations regarding the name of this program. At any rate, as it turns out, what has a lot of people upset and freaking out on the Internet regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is certain content that begins at pages 1501-1502 in the H.R. 3962 version of the bill where we read the following:

----- Begin Quote -----

Page 1501

19 Subtitle C -- Food and Drug

20 Administration

21 PART 1 -- IN GENERAL

22 SEC. 2571. NATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY

23 (a) Register. --

Page 1502

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 519 of the Federal

2 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i) is

3 amended—

4 (A) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub-

5 section (h); and

6 (B) by inserting after subsection (f) the

7 following:

8 ‘‘National Medical Device Registry

9 ‘‘(g)(1)(A) The Secretary shall establish a national

10 medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as

11 the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety

12 and outcomes data on each covered device.

13 ‘‘(B) In this subsection, the term ‘covered device’—

14 ‘‘(i) shall include each class III device; and

15 ‘‘(ii) may include, as the Secretary determines

16 appropriate and specifies in regulation, a class II de-

17 vice that is life-supporting or life-sustaining.

----- End Quote -----

Please note what I stated a moment ago. Exactly where is the above information found? In the previous House version of the bill which was ultimately rejected by the Senate; that is, in H. R. 3962. As you can verify for yourself if you are willing to conduct your own online research, the U.S. Senate basically ignored the House version of this bill. They took another House bill -- that is, H. R. 3590, which was a bill that was related to revenue -- greatly modified its contents, and then introduced it as the Senate's version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The point which you need to understand is that the previous information which has been causing so much commotion on the Internet, is not even found in the final version of H. R. 3590 which was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. What I did find on page 746 of the final version of H.R. 3590 which became law is the following:

----- Begin Quote -----

(3) MEDICAL DEVICE. -- For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘‘medical device’’ means any device (as defined in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h))) intended for humans.

----- End Quote -----

In other words, there appears to be no mention of a medical device registry in H.R. 3590. We are simply told to refer to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in order to find out which kinds of devices are included in the term "medical device". While the word "registry" is used a total of twenty times in the official, certified version of the PPACA, none of the usages have anything to do with a National Medical Device Registry. For whatever the reasons, it seems that the Congress decided to not include the National Medical Device Registry language in the final version of the bill. I would assume that it is because it did not have enough support.

Even though the aforementioned language is not even included in the final version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was signed into law by President Obama, as I mentioned a moment ago, it is this very information which has been used to fuel unfounded rumors on the Internet regarding American citizens being required to receive the Mark of the Beast beginning on March 23, 2013. The way that this is being accomplished is by suggesting that there is a lot more to the clauses in H. R. 3962 regarding class II and class III medical devices. In other words, the misguided authors of these rumors are convincing naive, gullible souls that concealed within the language concerning class II and class III medical devices is the requirement that Americans begin receiving the implantable RFID transponder -- such as VeriChip -- beginning next year.

More specifically, the author of one particular video that I watched points to the section in H. R. 3962 which states the following:

----- Begin Quote -----

"In this subsection, the term 'covered device' shall include each class III device; and may include, as the Secretary determines appropriate and specifies in regulation, a class II device that is life-supporting or life-sustaining."

----- End Quote -----

The author then proceeds to try to convince his viewers that the words "may include" is purposely leaving an open door for the use of implantable RFID chips, such as the VeriChip. He also claims that said microchips are class II devices. While H. R. 3962 does not clarify exactly what class II and class III devices are, a quick Internet search will lead you to such pages as the following on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration -- or FDA -- website:

https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/GeneralandSpecialControls/default.htm

The above FDA page reveals the following information regarding exactly what class II and class III medical devices are, as well as the level of control to which they must be subjected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration :

----- Begin Quote -----

Class I - General Controls

Class I devices are subject to the least regulatory control. They present minimal potential for harm to the user and are often simpler in design than Class II or Class III devices. Class I devices are subject to "General Controls" as are Class II and Class III devices.

Examples of Class I devices include elastic bandages, examination gloves, and hand-held surgical instruments.

Class II - Special Controls

Class II devices are those for which general controls alone are insufficient to assure safety and effectiveness, and existing methods are available to provide such assurances. In addition to complying with general controls, Class II devices are also subject to special controls.

Special controls may include special labeling requirements, mandatory performance standards and postmarket surveillance.

Examples of Class II devices include powered wheelchairs, infusion pumps, and surgical drapes.

Class III - Premarket Approval

Class III is the most stringent regulatory category for devices. Class III devices are those for which insufficient information exists to assure safety and effectiveness solely through general or special controls.

Class III devices are usually those that support or sustain human life, are of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, or which present a potential, unreasonable risk of illness or injury.

Examples of Class III devices which require a premarket approval include replacement heart valves, silicone gel-filled breast implants, and implanted cerebella stimulators.

Examples of Class III devices which currently require a premarket notification include implantable pacemaker pulse generators and endosseous implants.

----- End Quote -----

As you can see, the previous information indicates that class III devices do include certain implantable devices, such as a pacemaker. Taking into consideration the specific nature and purpose of implantable RFID biochips such as the VeriChip, SurgiChip, etc. -- that is, patient identification and accessing patient medical records -- I would assume that they would be considered to be a class III device. However, I am not absolutely certain of this point; obviously because I am not knowledgeable in this area. Whatever the case may be, as my regular readers will know, I have been issuing warnings regarding the potential negative ramifications of RFID and implantable technology for quite a few years now. The Wikipedia website also offers us additional information at the following URL, regarding some RFID-dependent devices which have been approved by the FDA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_device#Class_II:_General_controls_with_special_controls

----- Begin Quote -----

Medical devices incorporating RFID

In 2004, the FDA authorized marketing of two different types of medical devices that incorporate radio-frequency identification, or RFID. The first type is the SurgiChip tag, an external surgical marker that is intended to minimize the likelihood of wrong-site, wrong-procedure and wrong-patient surgeries. The tag consists of a label with passive transponder, along with a printer, an encoder and a RFID reader. The tag is labeled and encoded with the patient's name and the details of the planned surgery, and then placed in the patient's chart. On the day of surgery, the adhesive-backed tag is placed on the patient's body near the surgical site. In the operating room the tag is scanned and the information is verified with the patient's chart. Just before surgery, the tag is removed and placed back in the chart.

The second type of RFID medical device is the implantable radiofrequency transponder system for patient identification and health information. One example of this type of medical device is the VeriChip, which includes a passive implanted transponder, inserter and scanner. The chip stores a unique electronic identification code that can be used to access patient identification and corresponding health information in a database. The chip itself does not store health information or a patient's name.

----- End Quote -----

As I point out in other 666-related articles which I will list at the end of this current article, Applied Digital Solutions' VeriChip and VeriPay implants have received a strong degree of opposition within the United States. As a result, they have been endeavoring to find a more friendly market outside of the United States, such as in Europe and Latin America. In fact, according to what I have read, a growing number of bars and nightclubs in Europe already require that their patrons be chipped in order to enter their establishments. Applied Digital Solutions is also known as Digital Angel Corp, but there is nothing angelic about it whatsoever.

Based on certain open-ended language that can be found in House Bill H. R. 3962 -- such as the phrase "Not later than 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act" -- which has been taken out of context, as I mentioned earlier, rumormongers on the web have been in an uproar; including on social networks such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. These irresponsible people have been promoting the misguided belief that beginning on March 23, 2013, all health care recipients -- which actually means all Americans being as everyone will soon be required to have some form of health insurance -- will be required to receive an RFID implantable device, if they wish to continue to receive medical attention.

If you are wondering how these people arrived at this date, it is based on the fact that President Obama signed the bill on March 23, 2010. Thus, thirty-six months -- or three years -- later would be March 23, 2013. However, it has also been suggested that this alleged mandatory chipping requirement will not occur until June 28, 2015, because the U.S. Supreme Court did not uphold the legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act until June 28, 2012.

Let me reiterate that to my personal knowledge, there is no language in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which even remotely suggests any such thing. I am convinced that there is absolutely no mention -- directly or inferred -- that Americans will be forced to receive an implantable RFID transponder by March 23, 2013. The misguided people who are making these outlandish claims are taking a number of ambiguous sentences in the Act, and then making some rather big assumptions regarding what the statements may mean. Not only that, but the statements and language which they are using to support their claims are not even included in the final, certified version of the bill which was signed into law by President Obama. Their information -- and erroneous assumptions -- comes from the House version of the bill -- that is H. R. 3962 -- which was rejected by the Senate.

My regular readers will already realize that I am not by any means suggesting that the Biblical Mark of the Beast, or 666, is not real. The Mark of the Beast is indeed mentioned in the Book of Revelation, but these current rumors are utterly false. As I have already pointed out, I have personally been warning about these kinds of developments for many years now. All I am actually saying is that the people who are currently promoting these wild ideas regarding Obamacare are seriously exaggerating the facts, and distorting what is really stated in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Not only that, but I strongly suspect that the people who are behind these rumors have a political agenda in mind, which should be rather obvious to everyone.

Aside from the misguided assumption that an RFID medical chip will become mandatory under Obamacare, the concern is that it will eventually lead to other more questionable uses outside of the medical field, such as identification and surveillance of the general populace, and a restrictive economic system in which individuals who refuse to be implanted with a biochip, will simply not be able to avail themselves of the financial system, and will thus be viewed as outcasts. In other words, the 666 Mark of the Beast system which is described in the thirteenth chapter of the Book of Revelation. Again, I have been warning about this possibility for many years now. For those few of you who may not be familiar with these verses, allow me to share them with you for your consideration:

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."


As I have already stated, to my knowledge, Obamacare -- or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- does not contain any specific language which mandates that American citizens be implanted with an RFID transponder. While there are currently some people who have voluntarily been chipped with a trackable RFID transponder -- such as certain elderly people who suffer from Alzheimer's disease -- at this point in time, no one can force anyone to receive a VeriChip or a similar implantable device against their will in the United States. Given the nation's strong Christian background, as I explained earlier, there is very stiff opposition to this kind of technology taking root in the country.

Taking into consideration the length and complexity of the Act, the very most that I am personally willing to consider at this point, is that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may possibly contain some ambiguous language which may at some point in the future be distorted, so that it may serve as a conduit for something more nefarious and evil. In other words, the Act may possibly serve as another precursor, but of itself, I believe that it does not contain specific language which makes possible the Mark of the Beast at this current time, or by March 23, 2013, or by June 28, 2015.

Now, if time proves me to be wrong, and there is something in the Act which its authors are aware of, but which we the general public are not, then this would give me cause for concern regarding the CHIP program, as the acronym would then take on very sinister connotations, and would suggest that it may have a double meaning. As you will recall, CHIP is the Children's Health Insurance Program. If there is one thing which I have been teaching for many years now, it is that Satan, through the secular system -- particularly the US public school system -- not only wishes to destroy our children's faith in God, Jesus and the Bible, but he wishes to fully control them as well. I have long warned about how the American government has been waging a war to restrict our parental rights, and to make our children the children of the state.

If you still do not fully understand where I am going with this thought, it is simply this: If the 666, or Mark of the Beast, system is actually implemented at some point in the future, a health care program such as CHIP could serve as the perfect conduit for easily embedding a trackable RFID transponder in our children, possibly even without parental knowledge, and obviously and most certainly without parental consent. Now, I am not saying that CHIP is evil, or that the people who work for CHIP are evil. I am merely pointing out that if the situation were to suddenly turn very dark, I can see how a program similar to CHIP could possibly be used for evil purposes, instead of for the positive purposes CHIP now serves. That is all.

Before concluding this article, allow me to leave you with a few final thoughts for your personal consideration. We need to remember that right now, with only weeks to go to the U.S. presidential election, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are in the hottest part of the battle, and mutual mudslinging is no doubt at its worst. As a result, they -- or their loyal army of proxies -- will say anything, and probably do anything, which will tear down each other, and make their opponent look bad in the eyes of the public. After all, their primary goal right now is to sway undecided public opinion, and to steal support and as many votes as possible, from the other guy.

In light of this fact, it should not surprise us in the least that the Republican camp would call out their guard dogs, and secretly fuel such misguided rumors as Barack Obama allegedly being the Beast or the Antichrist, or Obamacare really being a secret tool to implement the Mark of the Beast. Of course, there are also the usual bullets such as abortion, gay and lesbian rights, and Israel. Neither should we be surprised that the Democrats have been persistently using Mitt Romney's revelatory 47% remark to erode his support, and sowing doubts amongst voters by constantly reminding the public of Romney's history with Bain Capital, and his constant catering to the rich and the elite. Bain Capital in fact owns some very major American companies and entities.

For those of you who may be too young to realize it, this type of political bashing has been going on for a very long time, and the worst is always saved for last; that is, right before an important election is about to happen. Of course, with the advent of the Internet, it is rather evident that the situation has seriously gotten out of hand, because now everyone with a computer has a global voice, and they can say just about anything with impunity. With the aid of vast social networks such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Tumblr, etc., mudslinging is even more damaging, and works at the speed of the electron. Within just a few hours, a very damaging rumor can travel all around the globe. Truly, the Internet is one giant rumor mill.

As I have mentioned to my readers before, to the perpetrators of rumors, it really does not matter if the rumor is true or not. The truthfulness of a rumor is irrelevant to such folks. If enough people believe it, a rumor can be transformed into "truth", even if it is really no such thing. If their rumor causes sufficient damage, that is all that matters to the originators of rumors. Their objective has been accomplished.

If one digs deeper into this subject, he will discover that Barack Obama is by no means the first political figure to be accused of being the Beast or the Antichrist. This is just one of a host of Biblically-oriented rumors which have been floating around for years, which are specifically designed to influence and affect how people think and vote. There are so many figures who have been accused of being the Antichrist; from Emperor Nero, to Hitler, to the Roman Catholic Pope, to Prince Charles of Great Britain, to John Lennon, and I don't know how many others.

Insofar as American elections are concerned, if there is one thing which I have observed in recent years, it is this: The unscrupulous individuals who are behind these silly schemes know that if there is one way to damage a candidate in the eyes of Christian voters, it is by connecting him or her to something negative in the Bible, such as the Antichrist ruse. This is precisely what we see happening right now with the Obama and Obamacare accusations. These rumors are designed for just one thing: to defeat Obama in the upcoming election.

Let me clarify here that none of my previous comments are politically-motivated, because I do not engage in politics in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, I am by no means defending Barack Obama. I have made it quite clear in such series as "Obama, McCain and the Bush Legacy", as well as in comments on my blog, and on my Facebook page, that I do not approve of the man. My position has nothing to do with the aforementioned rumors, or the other rumors which concern his alleged fake birth certificate, or whether he is a Christian or really a Muslim. My disapproval is based on his positions regarding such issues as abortion, gay and lesbian rights, and embryonic stem cell research. I also cannot stomach his very liberal interpretation of the Bible. As such, while I view Obama as being a rather ungodly man, I do not believe that he is the Biblical Beast or Antichrist.

Please go to part two for the conclusion of this article.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.