Thank you for this post. I embrace the spirit wholeheartedly. It's been disappointing to me how few Christian leaders have spoken about the moral aspects of health care reform over the last year.

Here's a good piece on what the practical ramifications of the health care reform legislation are:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/who_does_health-care_reform_he.html

Beautiful post!

I've always been fascinated by the fact that Mark noted that the bleeding woman had "spent all she had" on medical bills. So many Americans can relate.

Where I'm from, supporting the health care bill alienates one from the Christian community...so I'm trying to focus on what both sides have in common. My hope is that Christians on both sides will keep things in perspective, remembering that our first allegiance is to the Kingdom of God, not to any kingdom of this world.

Wow! Using Jesus to justify government take overs! Jesus called us to be healers not abdicate everything to the federal govt. No doubt I too would like everyone to be insured but this will ultimately make things MORE difficult to insure and get health care. Good intentions are not always the best ways to get things done. And I know you're not demonizing those who disagree...but when you put Jesus on your side, what side can we be on if not Satan's?

It would cost us less to care for everyone, not more, if we weren't so enamored with insurance companies.

That 30% they take off the top of our insurance premiums to use for lobbying, CEO salaries and such would heal a lot of people.

Canada has a far better health care system that costs less and covers everyone, simply because they don't feel the need to throw billions of dollars in corporate welfare to the insurance industry.

Mr. MacDonald-

Your opinion is clearly altruistic but, oddly, biblically simplistic and governmentally naive.

1. Jesus was of course concerned for the sick. His hearings are a foretaste of what is to come when we are rushed into glory.

2. But the notion that "Any effort that is made to bring health benefits to more people (especially the weak, the poor, the children) is an effort with which I want to identify" is detrimentally simplistic. It is of course true that this bill will extend healthcare to millions of Americans. But at what cost? Countries that have national health care systems usually are only able to provide substandard care and often are forced to limit care for cost purposes. Yes we should extend care to those we can. But the problem is so much more complicated than you've described. What is "Jesus-Like" care? How do we pay for it? Is the cost worth it, or will it inflict more harm on our society as a result? You have offered simplicity when only complexity will do.

3. How can you champion legislation you say will ameliorate the pain of the weak, the poor and the children and yet not admit the unborn aren't included? If you're lucky enough to make it out of the womb, you get free healthcare. If not, the new healthcare might just kill you. Why? Because federal dollars will now be made available to any woman given the decision to save a life or discard it. That you wouldn't at least castigate this part of the bill is unconscionable. (And just for the record, if this bill made funds available to kill 4-year-olds, you would not be singing your happy tune today.)

All in all, I appreciate your sentiment but am disappointed by your simplistic treatment of the matter at hand.

I share the sense of gladness that more people would have more access to better health. May we all be compassionate for those who are sick.

Many thanks to Gordon for his poignant and pastoral perspective on this very important topic. The church in the US has strayed from standing for the poor and the vulnerable. if we must wade into the mire of politics, we should stand for the both the Sanctity of life and the Quality of those lives we hold so dear. That is a more consistent, Christ-like stance.

Many thanks.

Ryan, I think you are incorrect on your facts on #3. Once the decision was made NOT to federally fund abortions,I could only be happy for the changes that would care for the "least of these". I, for one, am willing to pay more so that more people can receive medical care. As this plays out, we may discover that the bill is either much worse than we thought, or much better, but it is obviously premature to make that declaration now. I am willing to pay more so more people can receive medical care.

4 But Judas Iscariot, the disciple who would soon betray him, said, 5 “That perfume was worth a year’s wages. It should have been sold and the money given to the poor.” 6 Not that he cared for the poor—he was a thief, and since he was in charge of the disciples’ money, he often stole some for himself. John 12:4-6

Sorry, Not everyone who claims to be "advocates for the poor" actually have their best interest in mind. Jesus was not fooled by that argument, and neither should we be as his followers. Neither "Left" attempts to enforce generosity, or "Right" attempts to legislate morality add up to the kingdom of heaven that Jesus taught about...

One simple observation, if I may: Each example you offered of Jesus' love of healthcare left someone praising his name. I think the Gadarene was even told NOT to tell, although I may be confusing him with another person. Jesus' primary concern was healing souls, so-to-speak, and not earthly physical conditions. When the newly insured go skipping about praising the Lord because of this Health Care bill, then I'll ascribe to your gladness. Until then, remember that we all get new bodies eventually.

Does Jesus want me to pay for abortions? Oh, and for the record, the anti-spam verification box below my comment said terrible achievements. Even it knows the truth.

This bill will reduce abortions.

The US leads the world in abortions, and it's not because we're more wicked and less Christian.

It's because here an uninsured mother has little probability of being able to pay for prenatal care, the delivery and all the health care costs after a child is born.

If we implement a health care system that cares for pregnant women and their unborn children, it's simple logic that more of those children will be born.

What a blessing it would be to have an abortion rate equal to more secular countries. Sad to say, but true.

If the church was doing its job, we would not be in this crisis to begin with. Government run anything always flops--unless it is the military. You are incredibly naive, and Jesus did not try to make the gap between the rich and the poor smaller. He tried to get the rich to take care of the poor! You need to read some history and take a lesson from Margaret Thatcher.

So Gordon bought the lie about "uninsured" not having access to healthcare. A Christian brother and friend of mine is an illegal from Mexico. He brought his elderly mother across the border needing blood transfusions and weekly dialysis. One day across the border and she had everything she needed for free. Almost 100% of what a progressive will tell you is a lie. He may not know it's a lie but with ignorance he repeats it as the truth. It's sad to see believers sucker for it all "in the name of Jesus."

I'll have to disagree that Jesus would be for this health care bill for many reasons. But ultimately, I do not believe it is compassionate for the poor to put health care in the hands of a government that will not manage it well or correctly and will end up making more a mess of it than it is already. I am all for caring for the sick and the needy, but never did the Law or Jesus or the early Church appeal to a worldly government for these things. They appealed to God and individual conviction to be individually compassionate. This bill teaches our nation we don't have to be individually compassionate. The government will do that for us, too.

Peace.

I have worked in the healthcare industry for many years and I have to confess - this bill is probably one of the biggest deceptions I have ever seen. I've not even seen anyone discuss the reality of government controlled healthcare. The reality is this - it is totally controlled by the size of the budget that's in the system at the time. Next years do's and don'ts are set by this year's shortcomings or windfalls.

First - the reality of our current healthcare system is this - how much do you want to pay for immortality? If you could live forever - what would you pay for that? The answer of course - is anything and everything you have. That's the course we were on. The supporters played on your heart strings for those poor, unfortunate people who had to sell everything in order to get medical treatment. They never took you to Canada or Britain where you couldn't get the same treatment even if you sold everything you had. Is immortality attainable via the medical community? Of couse not - but where do you draw the lines? So - enter government controlled heathcare.

There's only one reason government gets involved at all - TO CONTROL COSTS. The reality of a government controlled heathcare system is this - government cannot afford to pay for your immortality either - so guess what gets dropped? First thing - keeping the terminal patient alive. This is by far - the most expensive endeavor of medicine. The choice of life and death is simple - cut support for an ICD (diagnosis) or CPT (procedure) code - no human element involved at all - simply - we cannot afford it. What gets dropped next? Answer of course - allowing the problem patient to be born in the first place. You really think there won't be MANDATORY ABORTION for downs babies - even for parents who want to keep them? Think again! Then what gets dropped? Answer - whatever is most expensive - and politically unpopular at the time. I've just described to you Canada and Britain's healthcare system. Do you still want it?

Now I have to ask you - if what I'm saying is true - is that really the Jesus you know?

Understand - I'm not advocating medical immortality or negating the problems of the current system. I just don't agree that Jesus ever considered the Roman government to be anyone's solution.

Bottom line - we all better pray about laying hands on the sick and seeing them recover - because there's going to be a lot more people in this country whose only hope is the Lord - and maybe that is a good thing.

"The US leads the world in abortions, and it's not because we're more wicked and less Christian."

It's because we have some of the most liberal abortion laws in the developed world, thanks to the Supreme Court finding a previously-unknown right to abortion in the Constitution.

And now we all get to help subsidize even more abortion.

I hear people talk of oppression, and all I can do is laugh.

1. Any effort that essentially says that we must simply have a huge new government program that we cannot afford, especially in a time when our nation's overextended entitlements are already barreling us towards fiscal insolvency, is something that I DO NOT wish to associate myself with. I reject the notion that this is compassion. We are enslaving ourselves with debt, we are forsaking our children.

2) An increase in taxes is not simply less money in our pocketbooks to spend on shoes and cheeseburgers - it also means less capital that businesses, entrepreneurs, and investors can spend on labor, and fewer sustainable livelihoods available to Americans in the private sector. Any effort that amounts to an enormous increase in the American tax burden in a time of economic recession is something that I DO NOT wish to associate myself with.

3) Any proposed new government entitlement program that citizens themselves do not want, and which require tax-financed bribes and legislative trickery just to pass, and which funnels more power towards the centralized lawmakers themselves, is something that I DO NOT wish to associate with.

4) In the case of health care, reforms that seek to address the actual crisis (rising costs), and consequently empower the less fortunate to provide for themselves and their families, is something that I certainly wish to associate myself with. As this legislation does not take this seriously, instead focusing on gov't involvement in the marketplace and stronger regulations (which historically have served to distort markets and result in increased prices), I see no reason to associate myself with this.

Good intentions and pleasant political conjectures are not enough. Wisdom is what I, as a Christian, will associate myself with.

"The reality of a government controlled heathcare system is this - government cannot afford to pay for your immortality either - so guess what gets dropped? First thing - keeping the terminal patient alive. This is by far - the most expensive endeavor of medicine. The choice of life and death is simple - cut support for an ICD (diagnosis) or CPT (procedure) code - no human element involved at all - simply - we cannot afford it. What gets dropped next? Answer of course - allowing the problem patient to be born in the first place. You really think there won't be MANDATORY ABORTION for downs babies - even for parents who want to keep them? Think again! Then what gets dropped? Answer - whatever is most expensive - and politically unpopular at the time. I've just described to you Canada and Britain's healthcare system."

Unfortunately, you have not described Canada's healthcare system. If you have not experienced (or at least fully researched) it firsthand, then please refrain from misrepresenting it. My loved ones in critical care have not been "dropped," and neither are there mandatory abortions. As a Canadian, I am proud of our healthcare system (yes, it does have flaws) and more than pleased with the level of care I receive.

I'm fascinated that sam talked a lot more about how much he didn't want to be associated with certain ideas as an American than the ones he wanted to be associated with as a Christian.

"But wisdom is proved right by all her children."

If the Canadian healthcare system is so wonderful, why did Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams fly to Florida for his heart surgery?

This is hardly an isolated incident. I have friends who have had to wait for many months in excruciating pain to have a knee replacement in Canada. Here in the US, when it's been determined that I have needed similar surgery, it was arranged for the very next week.

That all will change of course. If they had simply fixed the problems in our system instead of overhauling the whole thing, they wouldn't have alienated most of the country. And we will see in November, that the majority of Americans are not happy with this.

I also, as an insurance agent, have seen many many clients who had to leave Canada & come to the US because they just CANNOT get procedures done due to backlogs in the system created by gov't controls. You might also research where all of our new drugs to treat disease come from...not Canada or Britain (except the rare company marketing specifically to the US) because there is no financial incentive (& therefore no ability) for companies to develop them due to gov't controls of pricing. The biggest glaring inconsistency to me however, is that we were promised "affordable healthcare for everyone" and were delivered MANDATORY health insurance. I don't know many people without health insurance (& I know a LOT) who go without just because they don't feel like spending the money even though they can afford it. FOLKS, they are going without health insurance because they CAN NOT AFFORD it. We didn't all wake up this morning with suddenly a few hundred dollars extra in our budgets did we? I'm all for health insurance everyone can afford (if such a thing is possible) but that is NOT what we're getting now is it?

This article's myopia is incredible!

As to public policy, MacDonald ignores the limited role of government: to restrain evil and promote good to provide room for the advance of the gospel. This ignores both.

As to Christ, MacDonald makes Him to be little more than a lovable magic man. No! His signs pointed to something much greater: that he is the reconciling member of the Godhead and will reconcile all of our depravity - including our human poverty and sicknesses - to Christ (Colossians 1-2).

I implore you to not allow your sympathy for the poor to allow you to be taken into vain and shallow arguments.

It appears that Rev. MacDonald is gullible. He actually seems to believe that the 2000+ page piece of legislation is going to be exceptionally helpful in the health of the poor and unfortunate. Perhaps a little more skepticism is wise and shrewd. While his heart for the poor, sick and unhealthy is appreciated, from one who works in poverty alleviation, his political and economic gullibility seems unhelpful. Politically the legislation seems more about expanding power than helping the poor, although few if any really know what it will do. You must purchase a health insurance product or we will punish you, as an example. Economically, the US government has not shown an ability to responsibly handle medical care for our elderly as it is on the verge of bankruptcy. It is not about a few more bucks from our pocket, it is about signing up our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren for debt they did not agree to, stealing and fraud in any other context – a moral issue in itself. No, not gladness. Perhaps sadness that some think this will fix the plight of the poor and sick.

I find what comes across as the moral superiority of those who believe in this health care reform legislation to be troubling.
It seems to elevate those who believe in universal health insurance over those who actually create jobs and business that provide insurance. Its as if intentions are more important than actions.
A person that starts a business, employees hundreds of people,provides good wages,donates money to charities etc. is less godly then someone that lives a self indulgent life but votes for health care reform?
If Jesus is for universal health care then why doesn't he just provide us with universal good health?
It seems to me that Jesus has a great interest in allowing us freewill even in the area of how we will care for those around us. I think there is a huge difference between me giving say 10% of my income to the government in the form of a tax and taking 10% of my income out of my pocket voluntarily and giving to someone in need.
If you don't mind spending a buck or two why not take it upon yourself to voluntarily donate it. Personally I would rather work for my health insurance and maybe try to create jobs that would enable others to afford their own.

Perfect bill? No way. But probably a step in the right direction. I admit that I breathed a sigh of relief when I heard that something had passed.

It's interesting to me that so few Evangelicals are passionate about seeing that others have their health needs cared for. I do fear I might be stoned if some of my oh-so-conservative friends knew I felt this way.

I'd guess that those who oppose this bill are already enjoying more than adequate health care coverage and have no fear of going to the pharmacy to pick up their meds.

I'd say we're a rather self-absorbed bunch, aren't we.

The bottom line is that when the need finally hits your own wallet or your own family, you just might have a change of heart.

i'm thankful for any system that helps people in need.

while in grad school our insurance wouldn't cover my wife's pregnancy.

even "discounted" we would have had to pre-pay the cost for the delivery by the due date, pro-rated over each month.

if i had had an extra 2 thousand dollars laying around every month, i would have had better insurance.

so we applied for government aid.

we got it.

so i'm thankful that that big bad government took "your" money and helped us celebrate the birth of our daughter with good medical care/help for my wife and without destroying our finances.

who knew helping people would be so offensive and awful.

ya'll have confused a particular theory of governance/politics with being a christian for far too long.

Jesus healed. Jesus unfortunately it is supposed, did not heal everyone. He never unfortunately it is supposed, called on Rome to provide healing for those He missed. Nor Peter not James nor any or the Marys, nor Paul nor Priscilla nor Aquila nor Apollos nor the great advocate for love John nor Matthew nor Mark nor Luke or the deaconess Phoebe ... One can not believe that they were so right wing and lacked compassion so as to believe in personal responsibility and compassion on a personal level that helps others in a time of need. Or that the church was responsible. It is unfortunate that James did not call on Rome to help the widows in Jerusalem, only 7 who were supposed to take care of it. Yes the NT prophets were derelict for not calling on Rome to help out and provide for healing and provisions.

In 9 states, domestic violence was a "pre-existing condition" that gave insurance companies the right to cancel a policy.

Your insurance claims are reviewed by someone who gets a larger bonus if they can find a way to deny them.

It is simply amazing to me that regulating out-and-out abuses by the insurance companies is now a communist plot. It's the same thinking that allowed Wall Street to rip us off for $billions.

Those of you who are opposed to reform, can you tell me why you defend these insurance company practices? Make your case that the status quo is better than regulation.

canadian christian - I do not believe I once mentioned what I did or did not want to be associated with as an American.

This all reminds me of the legislative push for "affordable housing" of the last decade or so. At face value, more home ownership among the poor and minorities would seem like something we as Christians should get behind. But those good intentions lacked wisdom or responsibility. And the result was that banks and consumers alike were pushed into creative and risky mortgages, and the looser credit standards were followed by rising home prices. We now find ourselves in a housing crisis that has affected all social strata, and most notably the poorest of homeowners.

There is no one in this debate who is opposed to increased access to quality health care for the poor. But obviously, we should not be willing to sacrifice wisdom and responsibility, or tolerate corruption, in favor of short-sighted fixes.

I personally believe that bolstering competitive forces (stronger anti-trust laws, removing intra-state competitive barriers, etc), removing market distortions (overreaching regulations, excessive litigation, etc), and incentivizing compassion (tax-deductible medical giving, tax incentives for volunteering doctors, etc) are the best, most historically proven ways to lower the costs of health care. Putting downward pressure on costs is the best long-term solution for empowering the poor to be able to provide for themselves and their families, and to avoid dehumanizing cycles of dependency. These are the types of reforms that I, a follower of Christ, could associate myself with.

sorry - the beginning of my previous post is in response to JONATHAN, not "canadian christian". i was confused by the formatting of the comments.

"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...but those who torment us for our own good will tomorrow torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S.Lewis

"Jesus did many miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name" John 20:30-31

The purpose of Jesus' miracles, including caring and healiing the sick was to authenticate His message. The problem I have with Gordon's post is not that Jesus didn't care about healing, the poor or social justice--but that we often miss the purpose of his miracles (compassion etc..). He did these so that those who witnessed them would believe that He is the Son of God. I have a problem with Gordon and others who utilize Jesus inappropriately. There are many good reasons to oppose the health care bill that don't include beliving we hate the poor or are unconcerned about social justice.

john - i believe the reason that your question has yielded only silence and 'crickets' is that straw men do not make good conversationists.

No one is defending abusive insurance practices, or calling for a completely unregulated industry. Proper regulation should only be concerned with establishing ground rules that ensure fair play in private markets. For progressives, however, regulation is often used as a means to predetermined outcomes. Such overreaching regulations in this bill include sweeping mandates concerning what all insurance plans MUST cover (limiting consumer choice, and shifting more of the health care industry under the inefficient insurance umbrella) and a mandate that every US citizen MUST purchase health insurance (which is hardly constitutionally authorized).

In this case, the "status quo" (though this is also a strawman, no one is arguing for this) may actually be better, in the sense that this bill limits consumer choice and does little to control costs. Competition is the most effective way to drive down costs. Insurance markets are much more competitive now then they will be when every citizen is bound by law to purchase their product.

THANK YOU, Pastor MacDonald! This very bold step by our congress has made me glad too, and I agree with you--I think it makes Jesus glad too!

Thank you, Gordon MacDonald, for your courageous stand. I am amazed by the misinformation circulating about this bill -- now the law of the land. The vitriol sickens me and I wonder why the church is silent. There IS a basic biblical injunction to care for the needs of the weak, the poor, the sick, the defenseless. And beyond that, in a good society we have a moral obligation to care if others in that society are struggling, even if -- maybe especially if -- we are not. Health care is horrendously complex, because every piece affects every other little piece, and there's no such thing as a perfect bill and there never will be. But this IS a start.

I have just come across this posting via the Leadership Weekly newsletter and I read with some amusement the comment that "Countries that have national health care systems usually are only able to provide substandard care and often are forced to limit care for cost purposes." by Jjoe. As a UK citizen, I am entitled to free healthcare which will meet my biggest needs. I agree that we cannot always obtain the most expensive drugs but give me the great system that we have than to find, as some friends in NC did, that they have a $100,000 for a medical emergency but do not have insurance cover. As a result, they have been saddled with a huge debt which they will find difficult to pay off in their lifetime. Which is better - free healthcare which cannot provide the latest drug every time the pharmaceutical industry produce a new silver bullet or being saddled with a debt that causes stress for a lifetime because people do not have the money to pay it off? I know that should I fall ill tomorrow, I will be able to afford whatever treatment the doctor wants to offer and the care will not be substandard. Come to Britain on holiday and should you require treatment in an ER, it will also be free. You will not need to quote a policy number to get treatment and this for me represents freedom.

I do think there is a distinct difference between health care and health insurance.

I think proper ethics should lead healers to heal whomever they can heal - and to seek payment as an afterthought...

Insurance is only as good as the math behind it, and I am afraid that the Math on this insurance is nothing more than wishful thinking...

A major point that often gets missed in the US vs Canada/Europe debate is the medical innovation - particularly in pharmaceuticals - that results from our privatized risk/reward system. While the US's private system may have some weaknesses in delivery, there is no question that it has long led the world in medical technology and pharmaceutical development. This doesn't happen in a vacuum; it is precisely the incentives that our free market system affords us that creates the environment in which this occurs. As a simple illustration of this point, by my count, 92 of the 195 Nobel Prizes in Medicine have gone to Americans.

To put it another way, medical care in Europe and Canada is as advanced as it is because of the American healthcare system. Much of the medicines or technologies used around the world are a result of innovation in America. To compare the two is like, as others have pointed out, comparing the national security of France and the US during the Cold War. Even though France spent much less on security and with similar results, there is no denying that they were afforded that luxury because they were under our security umbrella.

The point is this: our private healthcare system is good, not only for us, but for the whole world. We should be proud that our nation's system has been beneficial to the poor and vulnerable everywhere, and we should seek to protect what made that so.

John Stott: That must have been the poster either before or after me. I would gladly trade our health care system for the one in the U.K.

One of our pastors spent a good amount of time there and just raved about the quality of care in the UK. When she fell ill in her hotel, a doctor visited her at 10:00 p.m. and her prescription was delivered that same evening.

Here, the ultimate goal of our health care system is to deliver the maximum amount of profit to each party involved. It follows logically that an American's life is worth what they can pay. We like to think it was the free market that was nailed to the cross, and we pray to it to save us.

Gordon:
You cannot name a single individual in the Gospels who was healed without first hearing the Gospel meassage or being a believer already. The only potential exception is 9 out of the 10 lepers.

You have bought into the Scoial Justice Gospel of the Reformed Church as well as the Catholic Church. Jesus was not a Marxist. He was no advocate of government. He was rather uninteresed in government. He was only interesed in the Gospel. As others have said, them miracles demonstrated His authority, they were not His principle intent; in fact, he often left the crowds who pressed in because all they wanted was the free (physical) health care, not the spritual care. The only point of the Gospel is the salvation of men from eternal death, it is not about ending slavery (witness St. Paul's silence to Philemon) nor about ending poverty ("The poor will always be with you"). We, as Christians address physical health issues as an entry to speaking the Gospel. Period. To do otherwise is to corrupt the Gospel.

1. There is a difference between the statements, "I and most of the people I know have extra money in our pockets that we will gladly fork over to cover a tax for health care" and "The United States is well able to afford health care reform." Our government is, unfortunately, running huge deficits at a time when the economy has crashed and will not quickly recover. We are going to have to make hard choices soon in order to pay the bills. It's not un-Christian to point this out.

2. You get the health care you can afford, no matter the system. In a nationalized healthcare system, a nation can't give what it can't buy. The difference is that a nation can spend into a deficit (for a while) to cover costs and families can't.

My family's income is low enough for us to qualify for Medicaid as supplemental insurance to my work insurance. Yes, I "double-dip." So far as I can tell, this legislation will end that and I will have only my work insurance. The problem wasn't that I couldn't afford insurance; it was that I couldn't afford to USE it. I don't see this legislation changing that. BTW, John Stott, no ER in the US can deny treatment to the uninsured; and most US hospitals do write off several hundred thousands in debt yearly as charity cases.

I live outside the US in a community that hosts an American military base who engage in the most extraordinary largesse imaginable, so I find the comments about the US inability to afford health care unconvincing and conclude that this is more to do with priorities.

I am also acquainted with enough Americans to know about their families and am still tormented by one story. A woman told me about the death of her sister from a slow growing cancer that had appeared on her shoulder. Her family could not afford the treatment so she died from a treatable cancer leaving behind 5 young children. I find that incomprehensible….and reprehensible. And this in a country that proclaims her Christian credentials loudly and often.

Christian leaders need to speak up on government funding priorities. Is it Christian to spend more on military than the rest of the world put together? What does it mean that we are the largest debtor nation in the world? Is this kind of spending going to destroy our children's ability to have a decent life without the burden of our deficit spending? Could our insatiable appetite for the world's capital be making life more difficult for the global poor who can't even get a loan for $100? Can we afford to spend $9,000 per person on health costs? What does it mean that other countries priorities are more sustainable and even "Christian" than our priorities? We need to reprioritize and live within our means. This health care bill compared the the Iraq war is a small price to pay - not to say it isn't going to need to be modified.

Compassion is not running up national debt to a point of incomprehension because we want free services. Our descendants can handle it. Compassion is not advocating or being glad about legislation that drives a focus away from God and the church. The almighty state will care for your health and needs.

Thank you for this calm, rational and clear point of view. I am a Catholic and these past 18 months have been very trying for me. Here in California, the heated debates and the homilies from the ambo about same sex marriage, health care and the evils of Obama were terrifying. We were actually told from the altar that we would go to hell if we voted for Obama and for same sex marriage. All the people manning the "Yes on 8" tables supporting the sanctity of marriage were all divorcees and some remarried in the church. I rarely attend at the parish I have been an active member of for almost 20 years. When someone asked me what I was giving up for Lent I strongly felt like saying Catholicism. I have seriously been looking into the Episcopal Church, my husband and I have been warmly welcomed there when we have attended.

"If a man will not work, he shall not eat." 2 Thess. 3:10. Nothing unclear about this imperative from St. Paul. Puts to rest anything that would allow eternal welfare (food, clothing, shelter, health care) for anyone (particularly Christians).
Compassion felt and acted upon by most for those "in need" is like giving liquor to an alcoholic because he is thirsty - only contributes to the demise of the individual. Studies in Europe find that most people do not seriously start to look for work until four weeks prior to the end of their benefits. Human nature is such that if you allow people to be lazy, they will become so, and then demand that you support them.
No one can be turned away from health care in the US. Has been that way for 30 years! Check out the Hill-Burton Act that provided federal dollars to hospitals in exchange for them providing emergency care to those unable to pay. ObamaCare is not about health care, but about how that care is monitized in the economy. If you want more health care, why is there no money in ObamaCare for more doctors, more hospitals, more clinics? Instead we have dollars for Stupak's airports, etc! Obamacare is a monstrosity of a scam, just like global warming! Both are all about who will profit and be protected from shortage, rather than how the public will benefit.

Hi there
I am an american citizen living in New Zealand. I have been here for about 4 years now. New Zealand has a predomently government run healthcare system. I am just amazed at comments like this "Countries that have national health care systems usually are only able to provide substandard care and often are forced to limit care for cost purposes." Where is your proof that this is the case? TO be honest I find the level of care that I receive in New Zealand is fantastic. If anything I have found it is better than the care I received in the states. I have just had a baby here and am so glad I had her in New Zealand. She has had many dr. apt. due to reflux. It is such a relief that I know I can take her anytime she is in pain, without having to ask myself is we can afford it this week. My sistuation is the same as anyother new mom. The government mandates that everyone gets the same care. In my husbands lifetime, this is yet to change. It is a philisophical, social, and cultural decision that has been made with the belief that healthcare in an intrinsic right of being part of New Zealand society. From where I sit, my understanding of the character of Jesus is someone commited to justice, human rights, and the ending of poverty at all cost. Lets stop for a second and consider the change that came about through Jesus loving extragavently no matter what the cost than cosider what the world would look like if one of the most powerful nations desided to do the same.

This is not government controlled healthcare. That is the problems with most anti-health care reform comments. The public option was thrown out, that was the single payer system, in other words, the government.

This bill DOES not authorize government money for abortions (which is a large sticking point for most people.....so please understand it does not).

It is not free, Americans who are financially able will have to "buy in" to the health care pool, which means that there will be a care available to a larger number of people at a reduced price. If you are indigent or too ill to work, you will be covered. Right now 31,000,000 Americans don't have health care. And many work, but cannot afford private insurance, or they are stuck in jobs that they don't like because they need the insurance. Now they have coverage that follows them wherever they work, or if they are self employed.

It finally stops the abuses of insurance companies who cut off people's coverage when they need it most. Do you know how many people lose their coverage in the middle of chemo-therapy? Or refuse to pay claims because they say the insured had a "pre-existing" condition. This has been done when someone has fairly new coverage and finds out they have a serious illness. They get accused of knowing in advance they were sick, when in reality, they did not.
Many people lose their life savings, their homes, go bankrupt, ruin their credit over health care costs.

Even if this bill has flaws, it is a step in the right direction. Those that oppose it must start clearly looking at the reasons they do. Most of them have to do with selfishness or misinformation.

I think those of us in the UK see the division between left and right, liberal and conservative in the States as remarkable. Especially when our Health system gets drawn into the argument.
It's not perfect! But it has got one of my staff members with lung cancer into the operating theatre within a month for key hole surgery and will provide the follow up as is necessary.
If he wanted to do it privately he could have but he spent all his working life as a painter/decorator in South London and didn't have the option.
I know that the chaplaincy team in the hospital will be available to him as well.

I really have to wonder if behind all this bizarre behaviour in the states about health care are more profound character traits. More important issues for you to reflect upon, theologically, culturally, socially about what makes Americans tick.
Please, if you don't do it we all suffer. Take it from the last western country to be a world colonizer.

Gordon,
I have great respect for you and your writings, but I do not believe the supposed end justifies the means. This bill stinks to high heaven and includes untold corruption in process AND product. I long ago lost faith in the government's ability to ease human suffering. I could name many government entities that were established with good intentions to ease human suffering, but are far from compassionate enterprises. The VA hospitals come to mind. As a pastor I have visited patients in these hospitals and have been appalled by how we treat our heroes. If existing government health care treats our heroes so poorly, how will new government health care enterprises treat the rest of us any better? I also question the good intentions of this bill due to all of the corruption, arm-twisting, and deal-making. It seems it is a major government take-over of the private sector motivated my a lust for power. How is this good for America? What does it teach our young people? The means does not matter? How does this bill, in process and product, teach people personal responsibility?

Paul Burrus

Another Canadian bows in the discussion - I am reading these comments about Canada - our drug plans and research capacity and must admit I do not recognise how my country is being described. Quite frankly it is amazing that so many people but into the "horror stories" that the media has presented about our public medical system and policies.

But the fundemental point that Gordon is making must not be lost in the dialogue. Any Christian refelction on the direction that the USA is making needs to rooted in the Gospel accounts of Jesus who took care for the sick so seriously.

As an American citizen who lived in Australia for years and benefited greatly from their health care, I am amazed at the gullibility of my fellow citizens and believers.

Thank you Gordon, for such a clear statement. Unfortunately, only those who have eyes to see and ears to hear will get it. It is to the detriment of the Gospel that there are those who have so closely aligned Christianity and Republicanism.

I thank God I am an independent voter. And I am joyful that we have finally taken a much needed much overdue step toward treating health care a bit more wisely.

Here's a beef I have with this debate. Allow me to summarize the most common argument FROM BOTH SIDES:

"I'm from ______. I love our [socialized/privatized] healthcare system. It's nothing like the portrayals in your media. I heard a story about a person in your country who died because they couldn't get treatment, leaving ___ children behind. I'm appalled that your society does not value life."

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that its impossible to tell how representative it is of the whole. Statistical info is of course a much better way to evaluate our different systems. Of course, even this is complicated. As many of you have pointed out, Americans have notoriously unhealthy lifestyles, so even minor sicknesses can be complicated by poor cardiovascular health. So I propose that we look at statistics that are specific as possible to individual illnesses.

I would suggest that a good place to start is cancer survival rates. Compare the US to Europe (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596), and you will find that the US outperforms Europe in nearly every category. For example, the cancer survival rate for males is 19% higher in the US. For prostate cancer, it is 28% higher. You will find that US-Canada comparisons are not all that different.

Anecdotal stories aside, it would appear that a privatized healthcare system is indeed quite compassionate.

For some time the less conservative crowd had complained that the "Right" has co-opted Jesus. Rightly so in many cases.

This post feel like Jesus was co-opted again by the same people who lobbed those complaints.

Jesus is glad about this bill? ok.

Nice co-opting... at least they did it first

The medical profession has now done many studies about prayer & healing.
They’ve found prayer helps people get well and leave the hospital sooner.
Prayer therapy and Scripture therapy is beneficial and available to all.
No harmful side effects. ;-)

If the government was really interested in peoples health
they would encourage “getting to know God and praying one for another.”

They cried to the Lord in their trouble… he sent His word and healed them…
Psalm 107:19-20

Why is the first place people run to when sick is a doctor?
Why not go to Jesus first?

In my experience...
Sickness and dis...ease “Often” has a spiritual componant.
Unforgiveness, bitterness, broken hearts, anger, fear, worry, rejection,
envy, accusation, self anger, self hatred, self rejection, depression, etc.

Can proper medical treatment cleanse from sin and renew a mind?
No, only the Blood of Jesus and the love of Jesus.
Can proper medical treatment heal a broken heart after years of rejection?
No, only the Blood of Jesus and the love of Jesus.

Doctors do the best they can, they have helped me.

BUT, they can’t do what Jesus does. Heal the heart. Heal from the inside out.

I already have “Universal Theocentric Health Assurance” ;-)

And it’s available for “Who-so-ever will.”

God’s Words of Comfort & Healing”

http://web.me.com/love101

Thank you Jesus…

"Jesus, who seemed to take great interest in health issues, is glad."

Not yet, Gordon. Until you include your neighbor. Who is your neighbor?

"An undocumented worker was walking down from Nob Hill to Fisherman's Wharf. On the way, a bunch of teenage addicts, desperate for a fix, grabbed his wallet, beat him up, and left him in the gutter, half dead.

"Now by chance a Presbyterian minister was going down the same street, but when he saw the man he crossed over to the other side at the traffic light, since he was already late for a board meeting. The executive vice-president of the San Francisco Social Service Agency, when he came to the place and saw him, also crossed over to the other side; he was collecting his thoughts for a speech on 'Remedies for Juvenile Delinquency' that he was about to give at a prayer luncheon.

"Then a clerk from the Russian embassy drove by, and when she came to the place where the man lay, she had compassion on him, and taking the first-aid kit from the glove compartment, she stopped her car and tried to bind up the man's wound. She then put him in the back seat of the car, getting blood all over the upholstery, and drove him to Mercy Hospital.

"Since the victim had no Blue Cross coverage and the hospital would not admit him without a financially reliable sponsor, the young Russian took out her purse, gave the admitting clerk two fifty-dollar bills, and said, 'Take care of him, and if this isn't enough, here is my VISA credit card. We can settle the difference when I return tomorrow.'"

- Excerpted from "Unexpected News: Reading the Bible with Third World Eyes" by Robert McAfee Brown

Recent estimates of 11 million of your neighbors will cough up roughly up to $30 Billion annually to the nation's total health care costs.

Could you really give until it hurts?

Sheerahkahn – I don’t think you understand my point. This debate is primarily focused on addressing gaps in ACCESS to health care. But my point is that modern health care itself is as advanced as it is largely because of American innovation in pharmaceuticals and medical technology.

To put it another way, chances are that malaria medicines being administered to poor children in rural Kenya were developed in the lab of an American pharmaceutical company. Chances are that a surgical procedure being done on a poor mother with kidney cancer was developed in clinical trials in a US hospital. Chances are that the technology used to diagnose a specific kind of lung cancer at a VA hospital was engineered right here in the US.

Is this something that anyone can deny?

Like I said, innovation doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It is no secret that the risk/reward nature of free markets will spur on innovation, and the US [currently] has the most generally privatized healthcare system in the developed world. So yes, the medical innovations that have resulted from our private health care system have indeed saved lives at home and around the world.

Considering that, the suggestion that because of the passage of this bill, “We stop killing people, we stop being selfish, greedy, self-serving boobs” is unhelpful at best, ignorant at worst. Perhaps if we are to make these kinds of condemnations we should be prepared to look inward: how have we personally assisted the poor and needy in receiving medical care? Whose bills have we voluntarily paid?

As for the rest of your post, I can only say that we focus solely on access to insurance at our own peril. Health insurance providers have relatively low profit margins – look it up. The problem is the skyrocketing cost of health CARE, which is largely due to existing market distortions. Bolster competitive forces among health care providers and you drive down costs - and hence increase access – for everyone. Legislate sweeping new regulatory controls and subsidies and you’ll simply transfer those skyrocketing prices to the American tax burden, and hence there will be fewer private sector jobs and sustainable livelihoods available to the poor and non-poor alike.

Welcome to Ur, otherwise known as "The Church of Lets Pat Ourselves On The Back." Do you not realize that you sound like a bunch of goats? (See MATT 25: 44"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?) Of course you wouldn't realize this. Neither did the goats, according to Jesus.

When the goats respond to the King, they are not questioning him because they had walked by needy people without helping. They are amazed because they HAD been feeding and clothing people and voting for politicians who would get the government to do it for them. The goats are amazed that these "good works" do not put them in with the sheep. They are asking the King, "Didn't you see our righteousness?"

Just like the Pharisee in the temple, (Luke 18) (11) The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
(12) I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

"...if you are a Christian and believe in government mandated health insurance…that is fine, it is a free country…but please leave God out of it…he doesn’t support your view and he definitely don’t need you to speak for him."

this has to be the saddest post of them all."

lol Why is that...oh that is right...liberals know better then the rest of us...they have a better understanding of the Bible then conservatives so they can speak for God...

that is pathetic dude...save us all the time and don't post on the internet with your gibberish...I think Jesus would approve of that...

I am so thrilled that we have such a wonderful, caring group a folks in Washington, D.C. who are so wise at spending our money. In fact, they are so incredibly wise that they have spent billions, yea, trillions of dollars that we have not even earned yet (what do you mean they borrowed it from China?). And what is so amazing to me is that this health care is all "free". That means that I won't have to pay one penny more in taxes (what do you mean that we'll pay higher taxes now for benefits we won't receive until 2014?). It's about time we ushered in the kingdom (what do you mean that all of our medical files will no longer be private?). I think we should just open up our borders and invite everybody in the whole world to partake of this wonderful largesse (what do you mean, we could never afford that?.

Praise the Lord and pass the syringe!

"As a UK citizen, I am entitled to free healthcare which will meet my biggest needs. I agree that we cannot always obtain the most expensive drugs but give me the great system that we have than to find, as some friends in NC did, that they have a $100,000 for a medical emergency but do not have insurance cover. As a result, they have been saddled with a huge debt which they will find difficult to pay off in their lifetime. Which is better - free healthcare which cannot provide the latest drug every time the pharmaceutical industry produce a new silver bullet or being saddled with a debt that causes stress for a lifetime because people do not have the money to pay it off?"

If everyone got national health care in the world, what country would there be left to make all the medical advances. Without companies making profit from taking on risk to develop new drugs there will never be anymore medical advances.

"...can I now assume that you will use the Bible as the authority in such issues as abortion...?"

The exact same passages which you would use to show that abortion is evil are the ones I would use to show that lack of public health care is evil.

They both kill children* because it is cheaper and more convenient. Yet one we term a sin while the other is just the free market at work.

And we ignore the fact that access to prenatal and post-natal health care obviously would reduce abortion. It is no coincidence we lead the world in both abortion and uninsured people.

You cannot stand on scripture to both oppose abortion and oppose public health care. The positions are 180 degrees apart. You are either pro-life or you are not. Economic arguments and political theory have absolutely nothing to do with it.

* An uninsured child is 60% to 100% (depending on the study) to die of a given life-threatening illness than a child that has insurance.

Sam, I would like to respond to your irritation with the non-Americans who have responded on this site with "anecdotes".

The American debate about health care is like a family fight that is so loud and ugly that everybody in the street can hear it, which is doubly disturbing because we, your neighbours, are being caricatured and slammed in your family fight, in regards to the different choices that we have made about health care. If you, as a nation, choose to fight so publically, and to slander other nations in the process, are you really surprised when the citizens of those countries respond?

Okay, I finally get it!

Jesus wants free healthcare, but JUST for people that live in rich countries. Not for people in poor countries. People in poor countries... well, sucks to be you.

Here in our rich countries we're going to take care of the "poor" (even though they are still among the richest 20% of the world) and say "we have to start at home." But of course we won't just start here, we'll stop here too.

Jesus was GOING to help you with healthcare, but it turns out that because you don't live in one of our rich countries, you can't vote for him in the next election.

Thanks for this informative article. I learned so much about Jesus. Jesus wants to provide healthcare to people that can vote in the next election, but his compassion stops at the border.

Hey - U.S. doesn't need Jesus - we have Obama! Our Savior!

kerry - I certainly understand your point, but would like to point out that i was clearly referring to "the most common argument FROM BOTH SIDES".

I honestly have no irritation at non-Americans who weigh in on the debate, please forgive me if I have given an impression otherwise. My irritation is with the tendency to use the rare horror story from America OR Canada OR Europe OR elsewhere to characterize that entire healthcare system. They play on our fears and tell us next to nothing about the common experience. Much better to compare actual apples to actual apples.

OK Fish, let's pull the trump card out...now that we have health insurance for all, will you and other democrats finally ban abortion so that ALL life is protected???
crickits--no, didn't think so.
btw...all children had health insurance previous to this bill being passed--its called S-chip.

American Christians and Europe:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/03/europespeak-and-american-chris_comments.html

The Republicans had the votes to make abortion illegal, just as they had the votes to rein in the worst insurance company abuses and anything else they wanted, and they didn't do it. They used that power to cut taxes on the rich, unleash Wall Street, go to war, and invent new warrantless wiretapping techniques to surveil Americans. So don't blame the Democrats.

sheerahkahn - yes, most all of us have had difficult medical circumstances at some point in our lives. Many of us here have personally sacrificed to help friends or family receiving medical care. I am in no way denying that or trying to diminish that.

In a similar way, many people also struggle with homelessness and hunger. These are very real needs that Christians should take seriously. BUT of course our response is NOT to advocate for the nationalization of our housing or food markets.

The bottom line is this. We have two choices. 1) We can drive down costs via market/competitive forces, and hence increase the medical purchasing power of the poor, sustainably enabling them to provide for themselves and their families. OR 2) costs aside, we can create new government entitlement programs and subsidies for the poor, which may provide immediate alleviation, but may trap the poor in an even deeper cycle of dependency, and - because of higher taxes - decrease economic opportunity for all.

Personally, I believe free market healthcare reforms are the most compassionate. I believe we are moving in the wrong direction.

And I am also glad that some effort is being made to curtail rising medical expenses - exactly how do you come to that conclusion? Adding several millions more to this program and removing items that increase costs (i.e. limit caps and pre-existing conditions). Please add supporting evidence to this claim?

Where does scripture approve of abortion?

Regarding Republicans had the votes to make abortion illegal - not exactly. Let me remind you that is was the US Supreme Court that made this ruling not our elected representatives.

Unless I missed the intent of the passage in the Bible - Jesus uses the power of God to heal people. Exactly where in the healthcare bill does God offer up his healing power?

I have only one question - President Obama stated in front of everyone on national television "It will not cost you one dime". I believe that we need elected officials (all elected officials) that live up to their word, not broken promises.

Sam, whenever we discuss health care we are not talking about "apples or pears", we are talking about the lives of real people......which is why so many people resort to telling stories. Our lives are storied because we are human, and as Christians, because we learned something from following the One who told subversive stories.

I am so disappointed in this article. I and my family have been without insurance and i never once thot it was anyones responsiblity to provide that for me even tho we went through very difficult times.

This is definitely the wrong direction.

Mike Kinney - great post, maybe the best so far.

Kerry - So can I assume that you take the same position when someone tells a rare horror story about your country's healthcare system as if it is representative of the whole?

Rich Barrett, just one problem with the whole "rich country" thing. We aren't rich. We are in debt up to our eyeballs. By electing Obama, we as a nation have taken on a $10 trillion payday loan.

I apprecciate your post Mike Kinney, even though I disagree with you.

At the heart of my disagreement with your positions is your desciption of government as an other. The Government of Jesus' day was certainly other. But we are "of the people, by the people, for the people". In other words, we are the government. The democrats are in power because people like myself voted for them. We voted for them becuase they promised to do things like address health care. Why? I can't speak for others, but in my case I looked at all the facts I could find and decided that UHC not only appealed to my moral sense as a Christian, but made the most financial sense to me.

Is this bill everything I want? No. I would prefer a single payer system. But the government is not just mine, it is also yours. So the process of writing the bill was messy, and nobody got everything they wanted. People are dissapointed and angry on all sides. That's called compromise. If Obama was truly an "other" as President, he could have done whatever he wanted. But he is not. He had to deal with Americans who disagreed with him as he sought to fullfill the desires of those who voted for him.

In Christ, Michael

sheerahkahn - I've been a little overly emotional as well, my apologies too. This is a hot button issue for sure, and i suppose in some ways we've failed to debate this respectfully. Thanks for initiating with pushing us back on track!

As for the debate, there are a few things I want to point out:

1) According to Reuters, spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars just topped $1T in January (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN14157083). Admittedly that is an enormous amount of money, but not quite your estimates.

2) RealClearPolitics is a great resource for polling data on healthcare (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html). They list out every major poll on the subject and create an average. The latest average shows that 39.4% approve and 50.7% oppose the legislation. In not a single poll do more people approve than oppose the bill.

3) I agree that its irresponsible to spend a trillion $ on war when we're headed towards bankruptcy. But the #1 difference btw war spending and entitlement spending is that war spending, by nature, is temporary. There will be a time when spending ceases, and we'll have an opportunity to pay down debts incurred. Conversely, entitlement spending is permanent. If we can't afford it now, there is no reason to assume that we can afford it later. It would be like taking on a mortgage with a monthly payment higher than your income - there's no getting out from under that. That is the epitome of irresponsibility. Esp since our current entitlements - namely Social Security and Medicaid - are already barreling towards insolvency. The CBO just released an estimate that by 2020 our debt will be equivalent to 90% of our GDP and rising. This is unsustainable, and not only are we not slowing down the pace of spending, but we are throwing permanent entitlements onto the heap.

4) It would be difficult to read the actual healthcare bill, seeing as how it is well over 2,000 pages long.

5) As far as our founding fathers go, our constitution enacted a system of federalism, which mandated limited and specific roles for the federal government (i.e. postal service, military, etc). All other roles not given to the federal gov't were relegated to state and local governments. Which is why our school, fire departments, police departments, etc, fall under state and local authority, not the federal gov't. The constitution stressed decentralization both in the political and economic sense. Many of the federal entitlements you mentioned were never intended by the founding fathers at all, and many of those are the main contributors to our approaching debt crisis. The federal gov't was never given authority over healthcare. To be honest, we should wait and see whether some aspects of this bill get struck down in the supreme court as unconstitutional.

6) Stupak yeilded his position on the abortion amendment after Obama promised to order an executive amendment. But that also could get struck down in the supreme court, and even if it doesn't, is only a temporary measure that could be changed by whichever president is in office.

Sam, yes I do take the same approach since statistics are only "anecdotes writ large", and anecdotes in any system are often an early warning sign, if we will hear them.

I am not opposed to getting the facts and statistics, I do that myself in most endeavours, but at the end of the day we come back to people.

More inane ramblings by one who wishes to be deemed wise and compassionate without the evidences of either. I have for years admired McDonald. This piece disappoints. I voted for Obama, but have come to realize how desperately wrong I was

"Jesus, who seemed to take great interest in health issues, is glad."

Not yet, Gordon. Not yet.

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ALL THE NATIONS will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. (Underscoring mine)

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

- Matthew 25:31-46

Did USA look after the sick?

If health care, which is 1/6 of US economy, addresses the question above, the other 5/6 comprises USA's answers to Jesus' remaining 5 Last Judgment questions:

1. Did USA give something to eat to the hungry?

Sheerahkahn's $960,000,000,000/year or Sam's Reuter 1 Trillion war bullions are not only mind-boggling but nerve-racking to reflect that the monstrous dough could have otherwise gone to alleviating poverty and hunger.

2. Did USA give something to drink to the thirsty?

Retrospectively, the sad event of USA's paying her farmers millions of dollars NOT to produce milk amid the world of starving children, no doubt, have not escaped Jesus' memory.

3. Did USA invite/welcome strangers?

Neither did Jesus, for sure, have consigned to oblivion what happened to fleeing Salvadoran UN-certified "political refugees" who had come to USA hoping to improve their economic condition, only to be rounded up and shipped back to their country and faced the likelihood of violent death in the brutal hands of US-backed military dictators. Hopefully, USA would not left that mournful memory behind as she racks her brains on what to do with the 11 million "strangers" now living in her land of milk and honey.

4. Did USA clothe the naked?

This is not about thrown-away-clothings-by-the-rich-to-be-doled-out-to-the-poor depots. This is about opening the floodgates of reservoirs of minimal necessities of life - clothing, shelter and jobs - for the "least of these" to enable them to live with enough dignity to buy their own clothes.

5. Did USA pay a visit to those in prison?

Reality check: Those in prison are members of minority groups, because they came from situations of extreme poverty, and therefore, could not afford expert legal help, and therefore, got the harshest sentences.

US President Obama's "Apology Tour" in which he apologized on three continents for what he views as the sins of USA and his predecessors appears to be right.

"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land." 2 Chronicle 7:14

Sheep and goats? We can't possibly take that literally.

Paul said our salvation is by faith alone, meaning what we do to the poor, the sick and the hungry doesn't matter to God. Jesus got it wrong. It is the free market's job to help the poor, who choose to be that way.

Our focus must be on ourselves, to love money and hate government as much as we love God.

end sarcasm.

Jjoe - ugh. I suppose twisting and mischaracterizing the other side's view is the easiest way to feel that you've won the debate.

What you are saying is this: "Since you have different opinions on whats best for society and for the poor, you are a selfish, money-hungry government hater."

At the core of your assertions is those who advocate for a bigger social welfare state are more compassionate in how they live in relation to the poor. Evidence would suggest otherwise. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

What is actually being argued, Jjoe, is that a more competitive, market-based healthcare system is more effective and efficient for everyone, including the poor. If you have a response to the points about innovation, cost controls, unsustainable debt, etc, then lets hear them. If not, then you have no intellectual basis for your claims.

No, I'm saying there will be sheep and there will be goats. There's no need to be too intellectual about it. I believe Jesus said what he meant and means what he said.

I fully reject that health care must be "market-based" because that means the ultimate goal of the system is profit.

My health care is market-based right now, and it sucks. 30% of my insurance premiums go to pay for insurance company lobbyists, advertising, million dollar executive bonuses and stockholder / speculator earnings.

Along with administrators (death panels) who ration my care, telling me what doctors I can see and what tests I can have, all driven by a pay-for-performance system that incents them to deny as many claims as they can.

That's the free market working perfectly. Everyone is maximizing their profit.

No one can serve two masters. You can run a health care system to heal people, or you can run it to maximize profit to the shareholders.

If you're concerned about cost, single-payer is the gold standard for efficiency and effectiveness, proven again and again around the world.

Praise God for someone who truly remembers what the Gospel is. It is far too common in this country to confuse one's political and social views with Christianity. Jesus told us to render unto Caesar that which was his and that which is God's should be rendered as He wishes. American evengelical Christians are far too worried about what is in it for them than they are in what they can do for others. Jesus was neither a Republican nor a Democrat and I doubt He would have admired Fox News Channel. I make well below the poverty level yet give a far greater percentage of my income to His purposes and charity than the average Evangelical Christian. The average Evangelical Christian doesn't even tithe much less walk that extra mile Jesus told us to walk. We are to give more than is required of us and to do so cheerfully. Thank you Mr. MacDonald for helping me see that all is not lost as it sometimes appears among Americans who call themselves Christian.

Michael, you have zero idea how much the "average evengelical Christian" gives. Perhaps many give privately, and help others with their emergency room bills or they buy a pair of glasses for others, etc. Perhaps a dentist or other health professional treats the poor with zero payback and without asking the government to cover it, because they have the Holy Spirit in them. Perhaps many of us choose to donate in cash so it isn't even a tax write-off. Stop patting yourself on the back and thinking you can speak for others. You have no idea of the giving I have witnessed by many, many Christians, who take absolutely no credit for it. It is supposed to be between the person and God, not something for you to announce. And just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening a LOT. Americans, and Christians in particular, have always been the most generous givers in the world.

Michael-

"I make well below the poverty level yet give a far greater percentage of my income to His purposes and charity than the average Evangelical Christian."

[9] To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: [10] "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. [11] The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men -- robbers, evildoers, adulterers -- or even like this tax collector. [12] I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

[13] "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

[14] "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

How sad. From the tone of the majority of these posts--from both sides of the issue--I have trouble believe most of the people commenting here are Christians.

While I certainly agree with the spirit of the article - i.e. that Jesus cared for the sick and so should we - here are a few things I find problematic:
(1) His use of the Scriptures. WWJD is not a good hermeneutic principle.
(2) Jesus did not heal all the sick or needy. This is a key point, as Macdonald's argument seems based upon the assumption that He did, even if it is an unspoken assumption. Jesus healing of the man lowered through the ceiling, and Peter/John's healing outside the temple, if understood contextually, were clearly secondary to larger statements of the Gospel that both narratives are trying to communicate
(3) I find this statement hopelessly naive for a Christian of Macdonald's stature: "1. Any effort that is made to bring health benefits to more people (especially the weak, the poor, the children) is an effort with which I want to identify." REALLY? Would he identify with Marxism? What about faith healing tent crusades? We must love people with our heads, not just our hearts - otherwise, our efforts despite being well-meaning might actually perpetuate the suffering or simply waste enormous amounts of resources (i.e. the UN).
(4) I find this statement disingenuous: "2. Anyone whose argument is based simply on the notion that we cannot afford making medical benefits available to more people does not get my ear. The fact is that our country—we the people—can afford it, even if it means that each of us surrenders a few more bucks that we would have spent on things for ourselves. We just have to conclude that compassion in the face of human need is a greater value than accumulating more stuff. "Who has made this argument? Who has suggested that the problem with the current health care plan is that it would prevent them from buying more stuff?!? No one has, and no one believes this. The argument is that government will actually be the wrong player to fix the problems that clearly need to be fixed in the system.
(5) This statement is misinformed: "3. Any initiative that makes it possible for the common person to have the same access to medical science as the rich appear to have is one I want to hear about." This bill does not accomplish this. Gov't run systems destroy innovation - which is why wealthy folks in gov't run systems still come the U.S. when they need treatment. And, a larger problem is "equal access" for this bill includes, due to regulations that insurance companies will be forced to comply with, things like sex-change operations and viagara and other non-medical necessities.
(6) This statement is also naive: "4. And any group that stands up on behalf of our physicians so that they do not have to fear frivolous lawsuits every time they make a diagnosis and propose a treatment is one I want to support." This bill does not help this at all. See:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/23/on-tort-reform-and-the-health-care-bill-whered-we-end-up/tab/article/

very glad for your article. i am sad by all the comments that simply spout rhetoric based on guesses and junk they've heard on Fox News. i'm for the bill, and i'll admit, i don't think any of us know how this will REALLY change things. how can people say it is "government takeover" when there isn't even a public option? how can you say it's going to increase abortions when abortions statistically increased during Bush's presidency?

it's seems to me all the negativity is really a lot of bull to cover up one essential complaint: "more of my money is going to be taken to help others." so, the simple question is, would Jesus want us to help others; to love our neighbor?

I appreciate this column so much - thank you. But I am tremendously troubled by comments which reveal that many Christians would rather believe sensationalist rhetoric and then draw their boundaries accordingly, than know what they're talking about. No matter how many things have been done not only to ensure but to DEMONSTRATE that abortion is not funded in this bill, some Christians continue to believe that it is, so they can continue to easily demonize it. Some people continue to call it "government-run health care" when it is no such thing: it is merely a system to ensure that more people have access to privately-run health insurance. The only thing the government is going to run, is the insistence that we get insurance. Once the premise is assumed that the government is going to run health care (when it's not), the conclusions flow fast and furious: the terminally ill will be left to die and then we're having forced abortions! And if that's not enough, the assertion is then made that this is what's going on in Europe and Canada, when that is demonstrably untrue. Christians need to STOP IT. Our allegiance is not to a political ideology, it's to the Lord Jesus.
Lots of people don't like this new law because it doesn't go anywhere near far enough TOWARDS government control of health care (which would rein in costs). I don't like the individual mandate, but it was the best that we could get if we were going to have to keep the whole thing in the hands of private insurance companies (they were the ones who insisted on the mandate).
AND, it needs to be remembered that our government is US - it's not an outside empire. If we the people decide together to help one another get health care this way, that is not oppression or tyranny, it's how our system works. There's nothing wrong with dissent and political activity to change the way elections go next time if your side didn't win, but it's terribly disappointing to see Christians embracing talking points that aren't true and making accusations that are easy, but are false witness, in order to demonize the "other" party. And Rachel at #2, the fact that "where you're from" supporting this law alienates you from the Christian community, is a terribly sad commentary on the so-called followers of Jesus.

Sue said: "Lots of people don't like this new law because it doesn't go anywhere near far enough TOWARDS government control of health care (which would rein in costs)."

Sue, you might feel better knowing that these boards and commissions have been included in the bill to ADD GOVERNMENT CONTROL and will really help to rein in costs:

1. Grant program for consumer assistance offices (Section 1002, p. 37)
2. Grant program for states to monitor premium increases (Section 1003, p. 42)
3. Committee to review administrative simplification standards (Section 1104, p. 71)
4. Demonstration program for state wellness programs (Section 1201, p. 93)
5. Grant program to establish state Exchanges (Section 1311(a), p. 130)
6. State American Health Benefit Exchanges (Section 1311(b), p. 131)
7. Exchange grants to establish consumer navigator programs (Section 1311(i), p. 150)
8. Grant program for state cooperatives (Section 1322, p. 169)
9. Advisory board for state cooperatives (Section 1322(b)(3), p. 173)
10. Private purchasing council for state cooperatives (Section 1322(d), p. 177)
11. State basic health plan programs (Section 1331, p. 201)
12. State-based reinsurance program (Section 1341, p. 226)
13. Program of risk corridors for individual and small group markets (Section 1342, p. 233)
14. Program to determine eligibility for Exchange participation (Section 1411, p. 267)
15. Program for advance determination of tax credit eligibility (Section 1412, p. 288)
16. Grant program to implement health IT enrollment standards (Section 1561, p. 370)
17. Federal Coordinated Health Care Office for dual eligible beneficiaries (Section 2602, p. 512)
18. Medicaid quality measurement program (Section 2701, p. 518)
19. Medicaid health home program for people with chronic conditions, and grants for planning same (Section 2703, p. 524)
20. Medicaid demonstration project to evaluate bundled payments (Section 2704, p. 532)
21. Medicaid demonstration project for global payment system (Section 2705, p. 536)
22. Medicaid demonstration project for accountable care organizations (Section 2706, p. 538)
23. Medicaid demonstration project for emergency psychiatric care (Section 2707, p. 540)
24. Grant program for delivery of services to individuals with postpartum depression (Section 2952(b), p. 591)
25. State allotments for grants to promote personal responsibility education programs (Section 2953, p. 596)
26. Medicare value-based purchasing program (Section 3001(a), p. 613)
27. Medicare value-based purchasing demonstration program for critical access hospitals (Section 3001(b), p. 637)
28. Medicare value-based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 3006(a), p. 666)
29. Medicare value-based purchasing program for home health agencies (Section 3006(b), p. 668)
30. Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality (Section 3012, p. 688)
31. Grant program to develop health care quality measures (Section 3013, p. 693)
32. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 3021, p. 712)
33. Medicare shared savings program (Section 3022, p. 728)
34. Medicare pilot program on payment bundling (Section 3023, p. 739)
35. Independence at home medical practice demonstration program (Section 3024, p. 752)
36. Program for use of patient safety organizations to reduce hospital readmission rates (Section 3025(b), p. 775)
37. Community-based care transitions program (Section 3026, p. 776)
38. Demonstration project for payment of complex diagnostic laboratory tests (Section 3113, p. 800)
39. Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration project (Section 3140, p. 850)
40. Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 982)
41. Consumer Advisory Council for Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 1027)
42. Grant program for technical assistance to providers implementing health quality practices (Section 3501, p. 1043)
43. Grant program to establish interdisciplinary health teams (Section 3502, p. 1048)
44. Grant program to implement medication therapy management (Section 3503, p. 1055)
45. Grant program to support emergency care pilot programs (Section 3504, p. 1061)
46. Grant program to promote universal access to trauma services (Section 3505(b), p. 1081)
47. Grant program to develop and promote shared decision-making aids (Section 3506, p. 1088)
48. Grant program to support implementation of shared decision-making (Section 3506, p. 1091)
49. Grant program to integrate quality improvement in clinical education (Section 3508, p. 1095)
50. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 3509(a), p. 1098)
51. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(b), p. 1102)
52. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(e), p. 1105)
53. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(f), p. 1106)
54. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(g), p. 1109)
55. National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Section 4001, p. 1114)
56. Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (Section 4001(f), p. 1117)
57. Prevention and Public Health Fund (Section 4002, p. 1121)
58. Community Preventive Services Task Force (Section 4003(b), p. 1126)
59. Grant program to support school-based health centers (Section 4101, p. 1135)
60. Grant program to promote research-based dental caries disease management (Section 4102, p. 1147)
61. Grant program for States to prevent chronic disease in Medicaid beneficiaries (Section 4108, p. 1174)
62. Community transformation grants (Section 4201, p. 1182)
63. Grant program to provide public health interventions (Section 4202, p. 1188)
64. Demonstration program of grants to improve child immunization rates (Section 4204(b), p. 1200)
65. Pilot program for risk-factor assessments provided through community health centers (Section 4206, p. 1215)
66. Grant program to increase epidemiology and laboratory capacity (Section 4304, p. 1233)
67. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 4305, p. 1238)
68. National Health Care Workforce Commission (Section 5101, p. 1256)
69. Grant program to plan health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(c), p. 1275)
70. Grant program to implement health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(d), p. 1279)
71. Pediatric specialty loan repayment program (Section 5203, p. 1295)
72. Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program (Section 5204, p. 1300)
73. Allied Health Loan Forgiveness Program (Section 5205, p. 1305)
74. Grant program to provide mid-career training for health professionals (Section 5206, p. 1307)
75. Grant program to fund nurse-managed health clinics (Section 5208, p. 1310)
76. Grant program to support primary care training programs (Section 5301, p. 1315)
77. Grant program to fund training for direct care workers (Section 5302, p. 1322)
78. Grant program to develop dental training programs (Section 5303, p. 1325)
79. Demonstration program to increase access to dental health care in underserved communities (Section 5304, p. 1331)
80. Grant program to promote geriatric education centers (Section 5305, p. 1334)
81. Grant program to promote health professionals entering geriatrics (Section 5305, p. 1339)
82. Grant program to promote training in mental and behavioral health (Section 5306, p. 1344)
83. Grant program to promote nurse retention programs (Section 5309, p. 1354)
84. Student loan forgiveness for nursing school faculty (Section 5311(b), p. 1360)
85. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors and outcomes (Section 5313, p. 1364)
86. Public Health Sciences Track for medical students (Section 5315, p. 1372)
87. Primary Care Extension Program to educate providers (Section 5405, p. 1404)
88. Grant program for demonstration projects to address health workforce shortage needs (Section 5507, p. 1442)
89. Grant program for demonstration projects to develop training programs for home health aides (Section 5507, p. 1447)
90. Grant program to establish new primary care residency programs (Section 5508(a), p. 1458)
91. Program of payments to teaching health centers that sponsor medical residency training (Section 5508(c), p. 1462)
92. Graduate nurse education demonstration program (Section 5509, p. 1472)
93. Grant program to establish demonstration projects for community-based mental health settings (Section 5604, p. 1486)
94. Commission on Key National Indicators (Section 5605, p. 1489)
95. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6102, p. 1554)
96. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6103(a)(3), p. 1561)
97. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 6103(b)(3), p. 1568)
98. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 6112, p. 1589)
99. Demonstration projects for nursing facilities involved in the culture change movement (Section 6114, p. 1597)
100. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1619)
101. Standing methodology committee for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1629)
102. Board of Governors for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1638)
103. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (Section 6301(e), p. 1656)
104. Elder Justice Coordinating Council (Section 6703, p. 1773)
105. Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (Section 6703, p. 1776)
106. Grant program to create elder abuse forensic centers (Section 6703, p. 1783)
107. Grant program to promote continuing education for long-term care staffers (Section 6703, p. 1787)
108. Grant program to improve management practices and training (Section 6703, p. 1788)
109. Grant program to subsidize costs of electronic health records (Section 6703, p. 1791)
110. Grant program to promote adult protective services (Section 6703, p. 1796)
111. Grant program to conduct elder abuse detection and prevention (Section 6703, p. 1798)
112. Grant program to support long-term care ombudsmen (Section 6703, p. 1800)
113. National Training Institute for long-term care surveyors (Section 6703, p. 1806)
114. Grant program to fund State surveys of long-term care residences (Section 6703, p. 1809)
115. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 8002, p. 1926)
116. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 8002, p. 1927)
117. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 8002, p. 1931)
118. Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 8002(c), p. 1938)
119. Multi-state health plans offered by Office of Personnel Management (Section 10104(p), p. 2086)
120. Advisory board for multi-state health plans (Section 10104(p), p. 2094)
121. Pregnancy Assistance Fund (Section 10212, p. 2164)
122. Value-based purchasing program for ambulatory surgical centers (Section 10301, p. 2176)
123. Demonstration project for payment adjustments to home health services (Section 10315, p. 2200)
124. Pilot program for care of individuals in environmental emergency declaration areas (Section 10323, p. 2223)
125. Grant program to screen at-risk individuals for environmental health conditions (Section 10323(b), p. 2231)
126. Pilot programs to implement value-based purchasing (Section 10326, p. 2242)
127. Grant program to support community-based collaborative care networks (Section 10333, p. 2265)
128. Centers for Disease Control Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
129. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
130. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
131. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
132. Food and Drug Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
133. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
134. Grant program to promote small business wellness programs (Section 10408, p. 2285)
135. Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2289)
136. Cures Acceleration Network Review Board (Section 10409, p. 2291)
137. Grant program for Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2297)
138. Grant program to promote centers of excellence for depression (Section 10410, p. 2304)
139. Advisory committee for young women’s breast health awareness education campaign (Section 10413, p. 2322)
140. Grant program to provide assistance to provide information to young women with breast cancer (Section 10413, p. 2326)
141. Interagency Access to Health Care in Alaska Task Force (Section 10501, p. 2329)
142. Grant program to train nurse practitioners as primary care providers (Section 10501(e), p. 2332)
143. Grant program for community-based diabetes prevention (Section 10501(g), p. 2337)
144. Grant program for providers who treat a high percentage of medically underserved populations (Section 10501(k), p. 2343)
145. Grant program to recruit students to practice in underserved communities (Section 10501(l), p. 2344)
146. Community Health Center Fund (Section 10503, p. 2355)
147. Demonstration project to provide access to health care for the uninsured at reduced fees (Section 10504, p. 2357)
148. Demonstration program to explore alternatives to tort litigation (Section 10607, p. 2369)
149. Indian Health demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (S. 1790, Section 112, p. 24)*
150. Office of Indian Men’s Health (S. 1790, Section 136, p. 71)*
151. Indian Country modular component facilities demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 146, p. 108)*
152. Indian mobile health stations demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 147, p. 111)*
153. Office of Direct Service Tribes (S. 1790, Section 172, p. 151)*
154. Indian Health Service mental health technician training program (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 173)*
155. Indian Health Service program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 192)*
156. Indian Health Service program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 194)*
157. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 204)*
158. Indian youth life skills demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 220)*
159. Indian Health Service Director of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment (S. 1790, Section 199B, p. 258)*

*Section 10221, page 2173 of H.R. 3590 deems that S. 1790 shall be deemed as passed with certain amendments.

I am an evangelical from Canada, and I and all the folks I know here love our Health Care system. It is serving us very well.

As for the Disunited States of America, your hateful politics, polarization and cultural war is very unChristian in my opinion and such a poor testimony for Christ to the world. I wouldn't live there even if you paid me to do so.

Gordon MacDonald's post above seems to represent a fairly serious failure to acknowledge the different stances on the issues, combined with an implied slur against his ideological opponents.

I apologize that my response took so long to write.

http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/002213.html

Thanks for those boards and commissions they were really helpful.

I wrote an article with the exact same name, on the same Topic, but with a VERY DIFFERENT Perspective:

http://thepromiseofglory.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesus-and-health-care-bill.html