Affordable Health Care is a Christian Act

[Jerry_Miah]

My sources are the actual lawyers involved in the case at the Supreme Court who just happened to be on EWTN. The law very clearly says there must be a pro-life option. It only specifies that there has to be one pro-life policy option though and that you cannot buy a policy that pays into an abortion fund and refuse to pay the charge. Thus by default you can coerce a lot of people into paying for abortions.

Sorry, that’s no proof at all. There are lawyers going to court over false or ridiculous things everyday, lawyers still going to court to say Obama is not a US citizen, and probably lawyers who would sue the government to prove the earth is flat. People can cite lifenews.com or lawyers for the extremist group ACLJ or whatever but that doesn’t make it true.

Essentially I have shown you that health care professionals, independent research groups and all middle-of-the-road news investigations say that no one is forced to pay for abortion under the Affordable Care Act, that the Act doesn’t change federal policy on that at all.

 

[_Abyssinia]

One thing that is often overlooked in this controversy is that the intent of President Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act is fix one of the biggest disgraces of the USA, namely that we are the last industrialized country without a national health care system, and this results in an incalculable amount of suffering, death and hardship for Americans.

Let’s talk about the immoral situation that has been the USA without a decent health care system: The 45,000 people dying in the USA for lack of adequate health care. The 62% of bankruptcies resulting from family medical costs, the 50% (over half a million homes) of foreclosures that came from medical costs. If such death and hardship were caused by a natural disaster or enemy attack, it would be an unparalleled catastrophe, but it’s been happening every year. Think about how much suffering comes from just one tragic death and then multiply it by 45,000, think about thousands of homeless families, and then you’ll realize that, in trying to finally find a solution to this mess, Obama is doing a very Christian and heroic thing.

We live in a pluralistic democracy which means we all pay taxes for things we don’t want to necessarily support – for the death penalty, for ongoing war, for weapons of mass destruction – but that’s the price we pay for living in this kind of society. We have to make the same (and actually minor) compromises to correct this moral evil of lack of health care access. Whether with the progressive Single Payer plan or this conservative solution of business/individual mandated health insurance, various groups paying indirectly for something they would rather not is just a reality of life, and one they should welcome in order to right the moral evil of lack of health care access.

I have international clients in Spain (AKA 70% Catholic Spain) and when I tell them about this controversy they think I am kidding. They would never dream of having a Catholic mandates in their national health care system.

So consider the fact that finally creating some kind of system for universal health care access – a concept long urged by US Council of Catholic Bishops – is in itself a humane act that would certainly qualify as Christian in terms of its goal of relieving the human suffering on a catastrophic scale that is going on in this country. Support the efforts in our country to correct this moral wrong.

If ObamaCare as it stands was a Christian Act it would be fully supported by the Bishops, but all 181 Bishops have condemned the HHS mandate which is part of ObamaCare.

When reporter John Allen asked him for his book A People of Hope, well before the current mandate controversy, “Fundamentally, are you glad health-care reform passed?” Dolan said: “I’m certainly for the idea of reform, but not this particular bill. We bishops found ourselves in a very tough position, because this is something we’ve advocated for since 1919. Now it’s on the brink of becoming reality, and we find ourselves unable to be exuberant about it, because there’s a very fundamental and critical part of it that scares the life out of us.”

nationalreview.com/articles/294365/cardinal-politics-kathryn-jean-lopez

If ObamaCare could really improve patient care, why did 60% of doctors surveyed in a Doctors Company Survey think ObamaCare would have a negative impact overall on patient care. 43% of doctors who responded to the survey said they are considering retiring in the next five years because of ObamaCare.

 

[Nate13]

Sorry, that’s no proof at all. There are lawyers going to court over false or ridiculous things everyday, lawyers still going to court to say Obama is not a US citizen, and probably lawyers who would sue the government to prove the earth is flat. People can cite lifenews.com or lawyers for the extremist group ACLJ or whatever but that doesn’t make it true.

Essentially I have shown you that health care professionals, independent research groups and all middle-of-the-road news investigations say that no one is forced to pay for abortion under the Affordable Care Act, that the Act doesn’t change federal policy on that at all.

Haha maybe coercion is something you have to experience before you understand. Will you be completely fine with the law if it turns out there is only one pro-life policy option for those who find it objectionable to directly help pay for abortions? Are you also ok with the fact that the government has directly told insurance companies not to advertise that the policies include a charge to help pay for abortions?

 

[Jerry_Miah]

If ObamaCare could really improve patient care, why did 60% of doctors surveyed in a Doctors Company Survey think ObamaCare would have a negative impact overall on patient care. 43% of doctors who responded to the survey said they are considering retiring in the next five years because of ObamaCare.

The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest organization of doctors, supports the health care reform act. usatoday.com/news/health/2009-07-17-ama-healthcare_N.htm

 

[_Abyssinia]

The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest organization of doctors, supports the health care reform act. usatoday.com/news/health/2009-07-17-ama-healthcare_N.htm

Multiple physician groups have come out in strong opposition to the Obamacare legislation and to the under-handed, self-serving fashion in which the American Medical Association (AMA) gave its support for the law. The AMA sought to curry favor with the government to preserve their lucrative royalty monopoly on the medical billing codes that must be used to file all medical claims in the United States. These codes netted the AMA 72 million in the year 2010 alone, and evidently provided enough incentive that the AMA all but ignored the will of the majority of doctors in the country in their Obamacare endorsement.

“There is a reason that most doctors are not members of the AMA,” says Richard Willner, executive VP of America’s Medical Society (AMS), an AMA competitor. “Only 15% of doctors practicing in the community are members of the AMA because the AMA has ignored them, disregarded their ideas, and chosen money over principle in the battle to preserve the doctor-patient relationship.”

communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/medicine-and-politics-america/2012/feb/1/physicians-perspective-healthcare-reform-doctor-co

 

[Jerry_Miah]

communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/medicine-and-politics-america/2012/feb/1/physicians-perspective-healthcare-reform-doctor-co

You got to do better than that. I will take the AMA over the Washington Times any day.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You got to do better than that. I will take the AMA over the Washington Times any day.

The AMA only has 15% doctors and as the article describes, the AMA is biased because they want government favor for certain royalties. I think the survey I posted is more representative of actual doctors, they were the only ones surveyed.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

If ObamaCare as it stands was a Christian Act it would be fully supported by the Bishops, but all 181 Bishops have condemned the HHS mandate which is part of ObamaCare.

But the Bishops didn’t come out against the Act altogether, did they? That’s because they have supported the idea universal health care program for many years.

Also, your link is very dubious. It is a blogger without proof of what he says – just a million links. The blogger also talks about Obama’s “war on religious liberty” which makes him sound like a nut, not a reputable source. Still, I am sure the Bishops have put out statements – this was pretty much a top-down edict from the Catholic Church. Even the priest in my parish, who normally never would discuss politics or such issues, made a big statement during mass during that one weekend when the hierarchy was ordering everyone to issue the proclamation.

By the way, the Bishops have recently lost in Federal court concerning their insistence that they can take $3 million in tax money to run a project that has nothing to do with religion (victims of human trafficking) and still prohibit the counseling that the victims need about birth control. Before that they lost the contract to work with the victims because of this insistence and I wonder what losing in court will mean to the Bishops in their other HHS fight.

In the end, it has become a philosophical issue and a sign of the great crisis in the Church. The hierarchy has got to decide if they want to be a part of society, because they can’t run public hospitals, taking tax money and then say they don’t have to play by the rules of society. This debate is not even happening in Catholic Spain, where everybody’s taxes go to national health insurance that includes birth control and abortion. If the Catholic hierarchy in the USA wants to follow some fantasy-based level of orthodoxy, they had better turn the hospitals and the other programs over to secular organizations, and just stick to running churches. Either that, or give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.

 

[Nate13]

But the Bishops didn’t come out against the Act altogether, did they? That’s because they have supported the idea universal health care program for many years.

Also, your link is very dubious. It is a blogger without proof of what he says – just a million links. The blogger also talks about Obama’s “war on religious liberty” which makes him sound like a nut, not a reputable source. Still, I am sure the Bishops have put out statements – this was pretty much a top-down edict from the Catholic Church. Even the priest in my parish, who normally never would discuss politics or such issues, made a big statement during mass during that one weekend when the hierarchy was ordering everyone to issue the proclamation.

By the way, the Bishops have recently lost in Federal court concerning their insistence that they can take $3 million in tax money to run a project that has nothing to do with religion (victims of human trafficking) and still prohibit the counseling that the victims need about birth control. Before that they lost the contract to work with the victims because of this insistence and I wonder what losing in court will mean to the Bishops in their other HHS fight.

In the end, it has become a philosophical issue and a sign of the great crisis in the Church. The hierarchy has got to decide if they want to be a part of society, because they can’t run public hospitals, taking tax money and then say they don’t have to play by the rules of society. This debate is not even happening in Catholic Spain, where everybody’s taxes go to national health insurance that includes birth control and abortion. If the Catholic hierarchy in the USA wants to follow some fantasy-based level of orthodoxy, they had better turn the hospitals and the other programs over to secular organizations, and just stick to running churches. Either that, or give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Lol and there is no war on religion? I see you only mean there is no war on politically correct religions. If you don’t want tax dollars going to church run organizations that is fine, just give me back my tax dollars so I can put the money there myself. Smaller government would fix a lot of these clashes between government and conscience. It should be apparent to all why communists countries are by default anti-religion. Religion gets in the way of big government.

It’s apparent your only in this forum to lay out the Obama bottom-line on this issue because the Democrats are scared of losing the Catholic vote.

 

[ACCT]

The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest organization of doctors, supports the health care reform act. usatoday.com/news/health/2009-07-17-ama-healthcare_N.htm

The AMA is in bed with the socialist government. Anytime you see the phrase, “to protect the public interest,” a little red flag should go up! Rent seeking behavior is at play.

“Rent seeking is the term used by economists when referring to actions taken by individuals and groups seeking to use the political process to plunder the wealth of others (Rowley, Tollison, & Tullock).” Rent-seeking behavior is the idea that government licensure of professions is necessary to protect the public. Milton Friedman, 1976 Nobel prize winner in economics, wrote his PhD dissertation at Columbia in the 1940’s on rent-seeking behavior. He refuted the constantly repeated mantra of rent-seeking behavior. Milton Friedman’s works provide empirical evidence that licensure is nothing more than a mechanism used by members of a profession to raise the entry costs, and thus keep wages and profits artificially high. Rent-seeking behavior improves the welfare of someone at the expense of the welfare of someone else (Baker, Morris, Barnett).

Ditto for medical doctors and the medical profession. In a normal free market there would be an oversupply of medical doctors and medical costs would go down.

 

[_Abyssinia]

But the Bishops didn’t come out against the Act altogether, did they? That’s because they have supported the idea universal health care program for many years.

Also, your link is very dubious. It is a blogger without proof of what he says – just a million links. The blogger also talks about Obama’s “war on religious liberty” which makes him sound like a nut, not a reputable source. Still, I am sure the Bishops have put out statements – this was pretty much a top-down edict from the Catholic Church. Even the priest in my parish, who normally never would discuss politics or such issues, made a big statement during mass during that one weekend when the hierarchy was ordering everyone to issue the proclamation.

By the way, the Bishops have recently lost in Federal court concerning their insistence that they can take $3 million in tax money to run a project that has nothing to do with religion (victims of human trafficking) and still prohibit the counseling that the victims need about birth control. Before that they lost the contract to work with the victims because of this insistence and I wonder what losing in court will mean to the Bishops in their other HHS fight.

In the end, it has become a philosophical issue and a sign of the great crisis in the Church. The hierarchy has got to decide if they want to be a part of society, because they can’t run public hospitals, taking tax money and then say they don’t have to play by the rules of society. This debate is not even happening in Catholic Spain, where everybody’s taxes go to national health insurance that includes birth control and abortion. If the Catholic hierarchy in the USA wants to follow some fantasy-based level of orthodoxy, they had better turn the hospitals and the other programs over to secular organizations, and just stick to running churches. Either that, or give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.

But the Bishops have made clear they do not support ObamaCare as it stands because it has no protection for religious freedom, it is in violation of the first amendment.

I do not think Spain has any constitutional protection for religious freedom, unlike America.

You note the the problem of socialized medicine, that the result is taxpayers paying for abortion and other services that are morally objectionable, like in Spain, and there is little that can be done to change it. The Bishops in Spain have spoken out against the abortion laws.

 

[markomalley]

You got to do better than that. I will take the AMA over the Washington Times any day.

You should also examine why, exactly, the medical insurance industry is 100% behind Obamacare, as well:

In SCOTUS case, Obamacare has industry allies

Lawyers from the health insurance and hospital industries have petitioned the Supreme Court to save President Obama’s health-care law from a constitutional challenge by 26 states and a small-business group, while other big-business lobbies have stayed neutral.

Corporate America’s stance on the Obamacare case before the high court this week will surprise those who followed Obama’s narrative or most news coverage of the law, which was supposedly a broadside to the special interests. But back then, health-sector lobbies either supported the bill or at least supported its core provisions. Today, industry briefs before the court show the same lack of “special-interest” opposition.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts filed an amicus brief with the court in support of Obama’s Department of Health & Human Services. The insurer writes that it played a central role in crafting Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health-care law that served as the prototype of Obamacare, and that it “remains firmly committed to the 2006 health care reform and the individual mandate, and believes that the closely related reforms enacted by Congress in 2010 will further advance important economic and social goals.”

On the question of constitutionality, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts argues that the individual mandate is “a valid exercise of the Commerce Power because Congress had a rational basis for concluding that, in the aggregate, the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care substantially affects interstate commerce.”

In other words, a health-insurance company thinks that people insuring themselves by saving, instead of by paying insurance premiums, is the sort of thing Congress should be regulating – indeed, banning.

(conrtinue at the link above)

Curious how eeeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiilllllllll insurance companies were supposed to be reined in by Obamacare. You would think that they would be bitterly opposed to it, wouldn’t you…

Then shouldn’t you wonder why eeeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiilllllllll large corporations, such as Walmart, have embraced Obamacare? (Funny how, despite Walmart’s full-throated endorsement, they’ve decided to cut employee health insurance coverage in accordance with the Obamacare requirements. See this piece for details of what happened last year).

There are reasons why this is the case, but I won’t waste the electrons typing them, since I don’t think anybody would bother to read them anyway (when I did an analysis here a couple of years ago back when the bill was being considered…predicting these very results…it went way over most peoples’ heads)

So how do you like being in bed with the Insurance Industry and with large corporations? I personally find it very ironic…

 

[DJK100]

When Obamacare was being proposed, I was very much so opposed to it.

But now that it’s a fact and now that the regulations are coming out supporting the legislation, I am beginning to see that it could be a huge moneymaker for my company. That may really make it turn out OK for me, personally (more earnings = bigger bonuses for those of us who contribute).

Of course, we are making good money with the electronic health records requirement already. That is only going to grow over time

But where I see the big moneymaker is helping the government out with developing predictive algorithms for cost effectiveness of therapies. Of course, it is pretty easy to do through performing a relatively simple sensitivity analysis looking at a person’s health history (accessible through the electronic health records that are becoming all centralized), the cost of the proposed procedures, and a static amortization table that determines the likely long-term outcomes. Where we are looking at making a major breakthrough is by adding in factors to the sensitivity analysis.

After all, what might be totally cost ineffective for a person with projected earnings of $250,000 for the rest of their lives (along with corresponding tax receipts) might be very effective for a person who is projected to earn $25,000,000 after the procedures are completed. The government might actually make the money back in tax receipts in the latter case, while in the first case, there’s no possibility of a “break even” point being reached. (Remember that the government only subsidizes lower and lower middle class people’s insurance premiums).

In addition, we’re also working on a social worth component of this analysis that can be optionally applied by the government. We will make it possible for them to look at a patient’s past charitable contributions claimed on their taxes, their political contributions, their online presence, and, if the proper laws are enacted, their past credit card spending, in order to determine whether the person is of the correct “social” position to receive benefits or not. Again, the law allows the government to determine what is cost effective. It doesn’t really mandate how “cost effectiveness” is determined.

CAVEAT: for those of you who are horrified, no, my company isn’t working on such an algorithm. But such an analysis tool is easily possible. And completely legal. And I know of two companies on the I-270 corridor in Rockville, Maryland, that are working on this type of thing…minus the social profile.

CAVEAT 2: for those of you who are not horrified…all I can say is ((sigh))

This scared the **** out of me until I realized you wer in option 1. This seems something that can very likely be so easily implemented. The “cost analysis of a life” program. Yikes.

 

[Ender]

But the Bishops didn’t come out against the Act altogether, did they? That’s because they have supported the idea universal health care program for many years.

They came out against the HHS mandate because it is immoral. They supported the idea of universal health care because they thought it was a practical solution. The former was a moral judgment, the latter was a prudential opinion.

Still, I am sure the Bishops have put out statements – this was pretty much a top-down edict from the Catholic Church.

You keep saying this sort of thing without any understanding that the prudential opinions of bishops do not constitute Church teaching. Although you were vague about what you think was an edict of the Church it really doesn’t matter inasmuch as the Church has no position one way or the other on Obamacare. You appear to be rather uninformed about the Catholic Church.

Ender

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Well, I’ve made my points and they all still stand. This thread is starting to devolve in that internet way. I’ll just sum up with this: ** If Catholics want to do the right, moral thing, they will help the president set up a national health care system, not obstruct it.
**

 

[ACCT]

Well, I’ve made my points and they all still stand. This thread is starting to devolve in that internet way. I’ll just sum up with this: ** If Catholics want to do the right, moral thing, they will help the president set up a national health care system, not obstruct it.
**

Sorry, but your assumption is false. There is nothing moral about supporting a socialist health care system. Socialism, including national health care, is allowing satan to set up his kingdom on earth.

People who support socialism are both deaf and blind. Do you really know where all of this is leading? Thanks to socialism, you will probably lose 50% of the purchasing power of your dollars in the next 3-4 years. From a secular standpoint, it is a certainty that the socialist national health care system will be a failure. The gospel of socialism is envy. There is nothing about moral about envy and socialism.

National health care is all fluff and no stuff. I am sorry that you do not get it.

 

[Andromedus]

Sorry, but your assumption is false. There is nothing moral about supporting a socialist health care system. Socialism, including national health care, is allowing satan to set up his kingdom on earth.

Yes, when I think of Satanists and worship of devils, thats what I think of. In an old ruin of an medieval cathedral they make a pentagram made of blood from a virgin and says ‘‘we summon thee, o Devil, create a national health care system so that people don’t have to be ill but get help with their sickness and lose their souls to you, o Lord! Mohahahah!’’. But don’t you think that you are overreacting a bit? National health care a step to the kingdom of Satan on Earth?

People who support socialism are both deaf and blind. Do you really know where all of this is leading? Thanks to socialism, you will probably lose 50% of the purchasing power of your dollars in the next 3-4 years. From a secular standpoint, it is a certainty that the socialist national health care system will be a failure. The gospel of socialism is envy. There is nothing about moral about envy and socialism.

National health care is all fluff and no stuff. I am sorry that you do not get it.

A secular standpoint? Why use the word secular and not economic?

 

[markomalley]

Yes, when I think of Satanists and worship of devils, thats what I think of. In an old ruin of an medieval cathedral they make a pentagram made of blood from a virgin and says ‘‘we summon thee, o Devil, create a national health care system so that people don’t have to be ill but get help with their sickness and lose their souls to you, o Lord! Mohahahah!’’. But don’t you think that you are overreacting a bit? National health care a step to the kingdom of Satan on Earth?

We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning – the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.

Surely these are they who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, “Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty.” They leave nothing untouched or whole which by both human and divine laws has been wisely decreed for the health and beauty of life. They refuse obedience to the higher powers, to whom, according to the admonition of the Apostle, every soul ought to be subject, and who derive the right of governing from God; and they proclaim the absolute equality of all men in rights and duties. They debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is “the root of all evils which some coveting have erred from the faith,” they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one’s mode of life. These are the startling theories they utter in their meetings, set forth in their pamphlets, and scatter abroad in a cloud of journals and tracts. Wherefore, the revered majesty and power of kings has won such fierce hatred from their seditious people that disloyal traitors, impatient of all restraint, have more than once within a short period raised their arms in impious attempt against the lives of their own sovereigns.

…But the boldness of these bad men, which day by day more and more threatens civil society with destruction, and strikes the souls of all with anxiety and fear, finds its cause and origin in those poisonous doctrines which, spread abroad in former times among the people, like evil seed bore in due time such fatal fruit.

Quod Apostolici Muneris​

I think Leo XIII said it far better than I ever could.

Oh, and by the way, before you point out that you’re not talking about communism here…

…no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.

John XXIII, Mater et Magistra 34​

And before you point out that we’re not even talking about socialism here:

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State.

John Paul II, Centesimus Annus 48​

 

[Andromedus]

Oh, and by the way, before you point out that you’re not talking about communism here…

…no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.

John XXIII, Mater et Magistra 34​

Good that I don’t even describes myself as a moderate Socialist then.

And before you point out that we’re not even talking about socialism

Yes ‘‘Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.’’ I never said that I thought that the State should control everything, when they can they should leave the job to a community of lower order.
‘‘In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need.’’

Actually, I never said anything about what I thought except that ACCT was overreacting a bit.

 

[ACCT]

Yes, when I think of Satanists and worship of devils, thats what I think of. In an old ruin of an medieval cathedral they make a pentagram made of blood from a virgin and says ‘‘we summon thee, o Devil, create a national health care system so that people don’t have to be ill but get help with their sickness and lose their souls to you, o Lord! Mohahahah!’’. But don’t you think that you are overreacting a bit? National health care a step to the kingdom of Satan on Earth? A secular standpoint? Why use the word secular and not economic?

The creed of socialism is ignorance - Winston Churchill. I am sorry that you do not see what I see.

Satan’s plan has always been to have a one world government and a one world currency, etc. We are moving very rapidly in that direction. A national health care system is not about health care, it is about a system of government coertion.

The anti-Christ cannot ascend to power over the world without a system in place. Thirty years ago such a system was not in place; today that system is in place. Satan is showing his shameful face and Pride is ascending his earthly throne.

We can do nothing against evil by ourselves; however, with Christ we can destroy evil. I look forward to being part of Mary’s heel that will crush the head of that old serpent.

P.S. I use to teach economics at a community college. Obamacare is not about economics. (Yes,there is over 60 years of solid economic research that says that sociaslism is a failure. e.g. minimum, wage, Social Insecurity, etc.) Obamacare is about spiritual warfare.