Contact FreedomWorks

111 K Street NE
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20002

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870


We did it! We killed the CLASS Act, a key component of ObamaCare

We did it!  We took down CLASS!

Today the White House officially pulled the plug on the CLASS Act, a key component of ObamaCare.

This is a huge development in the health care debate.  

CLASS -- a Great Society style home care entitlement authored by liberal lion Ted Kennedy -- was enacted in 2010 as part of ObamaCare.

But CLASS was poorly designed and actuarially unsound, and represented a massive taxpayer bailout risk.

And the folks in President Obama's HHS knew it.

But they gagged their own internal experts in 2009 and 2010, to keep the risk from being known publicly.

Had Congress and the American people known about the bailout risk, ObamaCare would very likely not have become law. 

Last month, a congressional investigation finally exposed the internal warnings, and the White House's stone wall began to crumble.

Even the socialized-medicine zealots in the Obama Administration could no longer deny the truth.

With the president's poll numbers in the tank, and his reelection in serious doubt, they decided to cut their losses. The new home care entitlement had to go.

Today, they put out the announcement. They will not proceed with implementing this turkey. CLASS is dead.

This is a sweet victory for the many Americans who fought long and hard to stop ObamaCare from passing -- and one tinged with bitter irony, because of CLASS's key role in the law's enactment.

The new entitlement had been added to ObamaCare as a budget gimmick. It had been purposely crafted to look like a revenue-generator during its first 5 years of operation, when the government would be collecting premiums from participants but not yet paying out benefits. This would make the federal books look better by some $70 billion during the period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And this in turn had enabled congressional Democrats and the President to mask the law's true costs. By appending CLASS to ObamaCare, they had enabled themselves to crow that the controversial legislation "wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime."

Well, their own actuaries knew otherwise, but couldn't say so publicly. CLASS would have cost taxpayers trillions of dimes.

If not repealed, ObamaCare will cost us trillions of dollars, and more important, our freedom to control our own health care. 

Meanwhile, the President's egregious mishandling of this issue is already costing the nation billions, with premiums rising and some economists blaming the new law, which doesn't take full effect for another two years, for continuing economic uncertainty and poor job growth.

Folks, the fall of CLASS is just the start.

In jettisoning this one flawed piece, the president's advisors may think they've made their handiwork easier to preserve. But instead, they've confirmed their own cynicism, dishonesty, and wrongheadedness, and thus given momentum to the grassroots movement to replace the government takeover with a truly patient-centered system. 

Congress should hold immediate hearings on this fiasco: What did the White House know, and when did they know it?

Meanwhile, we should savor this victory -- as a taste of things to come.

(For more information, read our report on the CLASS Act coverup.)

Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks' Legislative Counsel and VP Health Care Policy.


I saw a great article about the Class Act and Long Term Care:

Recent headlines have talked about the federal long term care insurance option through the so-called Class Act. The US Department of Health and Human Services. Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, said the federal government can’t provide a Long Term Care benefit that is financially sound.

In making the announcement, Sebelius said in a letter to Congress that “Without insurance coverage or personal wealth to pay large sums (of money) in their later years, more Americans with disabilities will rely on Medicaid (the medical welfare program) once their assets are depleted, putting further strain on state and federal budgets.”

Many people are unaware that health insurance and Medicare (health insurance for those 65 and older) don’t pay for most Long Term Care services. This places the burden of caregiving to the family or the family’s back pocket. With November being National Long Term Care Awareness month, developing a plan for Long Term Care is essential to everyone’s retirement planning. Understanding the government can only provide for those who have no assets makes this even more important to have a plan in place long before retirement. Affordable Long Term Care Insurance is the answer for many Americans who want to address the physical, emotional and financial burdens that a Long Term Care event can create on a family.

Terry Savage, columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times and nationally known expert on personal finance, author and regular radio & television commentator on issues related to investing and financial markets has said, “The cost of long-term custodial care is the most devastating thing that could happen to your retirement plans — even worse than a bear market. Yet it is the thing we least want to think about. And boomers haven’t been forced to confront this reality, because our parents are living longer, with new hips, knees and heart valves. But eventually, we will all wear out!”

When we talk about Long Term Care we are talking about two types of issues. Although some Long Term Care is “skilled” nursing home care after a period of hospitalization (some of which is covered on a limited basis by health insurance and Medicare) most Long Term Care is custodial in nature. This means a person needs help doing basic everyday living activities. Otherwise known as ”ADL’s” these include such activities as bathing, dressing, feeding, and toileting. According to the MetLife Mature Market Institute the national average daily rate for a nursing home is $239 a day … over $87,000 a year. Assisted Living yearly cost in 2011 averaged almost $42,00 a year and homecare, which most people would prefer, can run about $40,000 a year based on a 5 to 6 hour a day homecare schedule. This is expensive even for the well-to-do.

The national 3in4 Need More campaign ( is a non-profit organization working with industry, government and community groups to spread awareness for the need for Long Term Care planning. They say that 3 in 4 people need to know more. Prudential Financial Inc. notes that 74% of consumers ages 55 to 65 polled for a recent survey said they are concerned about needing some kind of Long Term Care. That’s about three in every four of us! But the consumer concern has not yet been translated into action in most cases. In the Prudential survey, 25% of all consumers admitted that they have no idea what a day in a nursing home costs. And only 22% of the participants mentioned the idea of using private LTC insurance to pay for care. (Prudential Financial Inc. Newark, N.J. 2010 Long Term Care Cost Study).

The fact is the advances in medical science allow us to survive accidents and major illness more now than ever before. The end result … we live longer and we survive health events. Unfortunately the end result is the need for help with everyday living activities and, as we age, we need supervision due to memory issues.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “At least 70 percent of people over age 65 will require some long-term care services at some in their lives,” (HHS/ Think that long term care is just for elderly people? Think again. Young men and women also need long term care for a variety of reasons including accidents, multiple sclerosis, strokes or other debilitating conditions. 40% of the people receiving long term care are working age adults between the ages of 18 and 64. (Georgetown University Long-Term Care Financing Project. “Long-Term Care Financing Policy Options for the Future,” June 2007.)

Sure, there may be more exciting things to think about, however during times where protecting your hard earned assets and your future or current retirement is more important than ever before, making plans for the biggest involuntary risk we face is something you should investigate. While Long Term Care insurance is a very affordable way to plan, it isn’t for everyone. You might not qualify due to health. You might be too old for this product as well. A Long Term Care Specialist can help guide you and answer your questions. It doesn’t hurt to learn and do so when you are younger and healthy and premiums are very affordable.

Try It has a tremendous amount of information, including information on the federal/state partnership program for each state, tax incentive information, cost of care and much more. You can click to get quotes and even talk to a Long Term Care Specialist. You can also find a specialist and information from the American Association for Long Term Care Insurance at . You can also get information and find a Long Term Care Specialist in your area by visiting ACSIA Long Term Care. ACSIA is the leading group of Long Term Care Specialists in the nation who represent all the top companies. That website is

It is the holiday season. Time to get the peace of mind knowing that at least this risk is planned for and you don’t have to worry about the physical, emotional and financial burdens Long Term Care places on family.

jean johnson

CLASS act could have been good if only it was well planned.

Max Banning

We should all beware of being successful in eliminating harmful provisions of the Obamacare act without getting rid of the tax and government control provisions. It could be a sneaky strategy to give up on Class Act and on Mandated Healthcare and to keep all of the provisions that add taxes to Americans and American companies and add increased Liberal Government control into our lives.


A friend wrote the following letter. I repost with his permission.

I have been hearing the following two questions a lot lately – so I offer the following for you to chew on and maybe have at your disposal if/when you are asked.


No, to both questions.

First off, properly framed, this debate is NOT about “Healthcare” but government mandated “medical insurance.” No one in this country is denied healthcare today. Any person can receive treatment at an emergency room whether or not they can afford it. Moreover, there are not 46 million uninsured in America. About 1/3 of that number includes people eligible for Medicare and Medicaid who, for whatever reason, have chosen not to participate. Another 1/3 includes people who can afford the insurance but because they are healthy choose not to buy it. 10 million are foreigners, including at least 7 million people who are in our country illegally. The number also includes people such as me, who use private not-for-profit plans like Samaritan Ministries, which costs about ¼ the price of traditional insurance, perfectly fits the biblical pattern of sharing one another's burden, and which will be OUTLAWED under Socialized Medicine (SM).

All told there are about 8-10 million people – roughly 3% of the population – who make too much to qualify for the freebies and too little to buy their own. Why not design a system to address the 3% rather than scrap the entire system? I will address that below – but the point here is that lies and exaggeration should not form the basis of public policy.

Make no mistake – SM will lead to a single payer system. SM proponents admit this will be the case. Medical insurance was originally intended to prevent personal bankruptcy resulting from a catastrophic illness or injury. Insurance companies expanded coverage to increase the number of products they sell and hence increase profits. Nothing wrong with that. However, a simpler and more affordable solution even today is simply to buy a catastrophic health insurance plan with a high deductible. These are reasonably priced unless one is a NASCAR driver or Skydiver.

The heart of the issue is about civil government exercising complete control over every aspect of life including - who is allowed to be born and from whom we choose to withhold care. This used to be called a “dictatorship”. Wherever government money goes, government control follows – always. Because they potentially affect healthcare expenditures for both you and the collective, when civil government via the taxpayer assumes liability for all medical expenses – all your behavior and your possessions including private property – will be subject to government regulation and control. This is magnified many times over when “mental, emotional and psychological health” are included in the equation. Do you own a gun? That is a health risk. What kind of car do you drive? What do you eat? How much do you weigh? Do you smoke? What temperature do you keep your house? How many children do you have? Is your house large enough? Is your house too small? Do you spank your children? Are you damaging their psyche with intolerant Biblical teachings?

Additionally, SM defies the law of supply and demand. Making something “free” creates unlimited demand. The government cannot meet unlimited demand and hence it rations available resources to those THAT IT deems to be the best value. This has been the experience of every country that has adopted SM. Citizens of countries with socialized medicine come to the U.S., not the other way around. Why? Because the U.S. has the best healthcare on the planet and because the treatments, drugs or procedures these people need, are either not available or unavailable within a reasonable time frame. In other words, before the disease or condition progresses to a point as to be incurable.

If SM is going to be so wonderful, why is Congress exempting themselves from the legislation?

Well meaning Christians mistakenly cite the believers in Jerusalem after Pentecost, “who held all things in common”, as some sort of biblical pattern to emulate. Nothing is further from the truth. God told them to “go”. They decided to stay. It is hard to blame them given the extraordinary things that they experienced there. Never-the-less God eventually brought a persecution to scatter them. Yet, while in Jerusalem – holding all things in common – they were incapable of providing for their own needs and had to survive on the contributions of property or free-will offerings from believers outside of Jerusalem. Not exactly a long-term solution.

The Pilgrims in America tried also “communism”. Yes, this is the very word used by William Bradford in his book “On Plymouth Plantation.” Marx did not invent communism. Marx was the author of dialectical materialism and used communism as his economic model – but that discussion will be saved for another time. The point is that the Pilgrims were starving under communism and did not prosper until every man became completely responsible for his own household.

Such economic models only “work” as long as there is someone else’s pocket to pick. They defy human nature AND Biblical principles.

Well meaning Christians also cite biblical references to help the poor as justification for SM. While we ignore these scriptures at our peril - God takes His Word and our response to His Word very seriously - these references are always directed toward the individual, the family or the church. Never are they directed to civil government. The purpose of civil government – as described by God when he instituted it in Genesis 9:6 - and when He reaffirmed it in Romans 13 – are to restrain evil: not meet needs and therefore become a source of idolatry.

Examples: 1 Tim. 5:3-4 “Honor widows who are widows indeed; but if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them practice piety in regard to their own family, and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God.”

1 Tim. 5:8 “if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

2 Thess 3: 10 “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

The commands to love God “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” and “your neighbor as yourself.” (Matt. 22:36-39) are directed toward individuals and by extension - families and the church - not civil government. Ditto for the good Samaritan.

Moreover, the contents of the SM legislation should terrify believers.

Is it moral to make someone wait 6 months or more for life saving transplants or chemotherapy?

Is it right to force all people to pay for the murder of unborn children? Abortion will be part of SM.

Is it moral to force people to pay for sex change surgery?

Is it moral to kill the elderly or terminally ill? Euthanasia is not outlawed by this bill.

Is it biblical to go into massive debt – one that will be passed on to several generations yet unborn? The righteous are supposed to leave an inheritance for their children and grandchildren – not leave them with crushing debt.

Is it biblical to pressure legislators to sign a bill right now that is so massive that it cannot even be fully read or debated properly by those legislators or the by public in order to actually know what they are voting on? Why is it such an emergency to pass this draconian legislation when the major negative aspects of this bill will not be implement until 2013 - conveniently after the next presidential election?

Is it biblical to lie about the contents of the bill because if people knew what the bill contained or what it will cost in dollars, human life and liberty – that they would not want it?

“The Biblically prescribed normative means for meeting basic family and personal needs are from: (1) our own labor, (2) investments from our own property and labor, (3) family inheritance, and (4) voluntary help (charity) from immediate family, extended family, church, neighbor, and others. Our labor is clearly God’s primary means of provision (Prov. 13:11). Labor is not limited only to work done for compensation but any work that contributes to meeting your own needs or that of others.

Frivolous, extravagant and excessive lawsuits raise healthcare costs inordinately. Tort reform is needed to address this. Congress refuses, because trial lawyers are one of the largest contributors to liberal democrats. Stationing INS officers outside of emergency rooms or simply enforcing U.S. immigration laws would result in significant cost reduction as well, but neither Democrats nor Republicans will do this. Most Democrats want new dependency voter blocs and most Republicans want cheap labor.

Additionally, removing numerous federal impediments to competition in the insurance industry would further lower costs, along with allowing people to deduct their insurance premiums directly from their income taxes.

But let us remember, just as P. J. O’Rourke once said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”

SM represents a “third party” transaction – like all government spending. Thus, it is by nature the least efficient, most wasteful way to spend money. The simple principles of Biblical stewardship would argue against this type of transaction. Why is it that everything the government buys costs more than what it would for the same good or service in the private sector? For instance, why does the government buy a million pounds of ham at twice the cost of what one would pay at a grocery store or why would they pay $600 for a hammer? It is because they represent third party transactions.

If your neighbor had a financial need, would it be moral for you to take the property of another neighbor at the point of a gun and give it to the first? Would it be biblical? Obviously not.

We are told by Obama that federally run healthcare will reduce fraud. Really? Fraud in Medicaid and Medicare currently amount to 3-4% of their budget equating to approximately 72 billion annually. Some experts say it may be as high as 10%. By contrast, credit card fraud amounts to about .03% of the credit card business. This means that fraud in government run programs is 100-300 times more prevalent that credit card fraud. This is an astounding revelation, yet these are the very same people who say private industry is untrustworthy.

By extracting "principles" from God's Word and then reinterpreting them according our ever changing societal and cultural fashions one ends up contradicting the clear intent of the passage from which they were extracted. David Chilton pointed out, "'You shall not steal'…must not be relativized on the mere excuse that the thief has no bread [or medical insurance]. It must not be violated just because someone has found a "principle" that God would like everyone to have bread [or medical insurance]. It must not be transgressed with the spurious rationale that the thief should have been given the bread [or medical insurance] in the first place. If you want principles, here's one: theft is theft. Easy to remember uncomplicated and biblical. The 'Christian' who advocates theft in the name of social justice is in truth calling for the Revolution, whether or not he fully realizes what he is doing." (p. 5)…Socialism, is theft. I am not speaking of the voluntary sharing of goods, but rather the state-enforced 'redistribution' of wealth. If someone-even the government-takes your property against God's word, it is theft." (p.9). Yet some "Christian Socialists" regard socialism "as being morally superior to voluntary sharing. Which is to say: Legalized theft is better than personal charity and sharing."

According to John Chamberlain (The Roots of Capitalism 1959; revised, 1965, p. 46) " 'Thou shalt not covet' means that is it sinful even to contemplate the seizure of another man's goods - which is something which Socialists, whether Christian or otherwise, have never managed to explain away."

Indeed, by any other name, and despite the "good intentions" of some of its proponents, Socialism is merely Institutionalized Covetousness. In a chapter entitled Covetousness as Idolatry Rushdoony writes, "We have thus in covetousness much of the social legislation of our times. The greedy rich pass laws to eliminate competition and to gain subsidies, and the greedy slothful men legislate to rob others of their wealth. Covetousness in not limited to any class: it is an aspect of fallen man, and it appears in strength wherever godliness is replaced by idolatry." (Institutes of Biblical Law Vol. 2 p.454). Poor and rich alike are thus affected by greed. To assume that a rich man is greedy is to dismiss many of the great men of scripture who in fact had the blessing of God upon their life reflected in material possessions (Job, Abraham, Solomon, etc.) The issue as always is the heart. Chilton states, "assuredly, many capitalists do worship money - because they are sinners, not because they are capitalists" (p. 12).

Oswald Chambers observed, "(Rev. x111. 11-18) Numbers are used as symbols for great big generalities, and the Book of Revelation takes the number 666 to be the symbol of humanity sufficient for itself, it does not need God. The description given is of a great system in which humanity is its own god. (See Gen. iii. 5, 22.) When the Bible talks of Man, it refers to the Federal Head of the race. The remarkable point of the vision is that it says the beast (in the spiritual, the self-realizing, sense) looks like a lamb, but talks like a dragon; that is, he looks like Jesus Christ, but when he talks, he talks like the old imperial dragon; when the crisis comes, he has tooth and claw exactly like the beast. The vision of Socialism is magnificent; these are benedictions and blessings for mankind on the line of Socialism which have never been yet; but once the root is cut from Redemption, it will be one of the most frantic forms of despotic tyranny the human race has ever known. It looks like the lamb, but when the big crisis comes, it gives life to the beast." (From The Shadow of an Agony by Oswald Chambers 1934 pps.96-97)

He goes on to say, "(2 Thess. Ii. 3-12). In Socialism there are things which look like Jesus Christ, but in the end they are more dragon-like than anything else, because one thing is evaded. The same with happiness, when once happiness and self-indulgence are allowed to rule and have their way, the end is the 'Superman.' If I believe I have the finest idea of happiness for my child, my child will have to come my way, and 'damn the consequences.' The same thing is true with a class or a nation or a state if it believes it is God. Each one of us in his own domain exhibits the tendency; in the state it is on a gigantic scale because the state is bigger than man's individual life. The standard happiness ends in the upset of happiness, in a tyranny and despotism of the most appalling order." (Chambers ibid. 98-99).

I now repeat what I wrote at the top of this piece, “The heart of the issue is about civil government exercising complete control over every aspect of life including - who is allowed to be born and from whom we choose to withhold care. This used to be called a “dictatorship”. Wherever government money goes, government control follows – always. When civil government via the taxpayer assumes liability for all medical expenses – all of your behaviors and your possessions/private property – because they effect healthcare expenditures for both you and the collective– will be subject to government regulation and control down to the smallest detail.”

Medical Insurance is not a right.

“A ‘right’ is the ability and autonomy to perform a sovereign action. In a free society founded on the ideal of liberty, an individual has an absolute ability to perform such an action - so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another individual. Health care is not speech: In order for you to exercise a theoretical "right" to health care, you must infringe on someone else's rights. If you have a ‘right’ to health care, then it means you must also have the right to coerce doctors into treating you, to coerce drug companies into producing medicine and to coerce other citizens into footing your medical bill. This is Orwellian. ‘Freedom’ for you cannot result in slavery for others. Thus, the concept of a ‘right’ to health care is an oxymoron: It involves taking away the rights of other individuals.”

Moreover, by nationalizing healthcare, this means that the bad decisions of a single bureaucrat, agency or policy will magnified 300 million times. Healthcare decisions should always be made on an individual basis. This limits the effects when either improper advice or treatment is administered.

Socialized Medicine is un-Biblical, un-Christian, un-Constitutional, a bad policy, un-stainable without rationing, and will lead to tyranny and oppression on a massive scale.

Joe Crews
Texarkana, Texas


Yes, Joe is an amazing Christian, and I'm happy to report he ran for a local public office, and WON! It's just a start, but we sure need people like him to run for office.

Margie D

@Txcowgirl1, thanks for sharing Joe's essay with us. That explains perfectly what I've been trying to tell my "Registered Independent" but left-leaning friend "Ron" but didn't have the eloquence and back-ups to present a compelling enough argument to satisfy him. I've passed it on to Ron and really respect Joe's succinct way of explaining why Jesus isn't a socialist.

flatspots479's picture
Tim Lucas

Obamacare was not about health but power. Liberals don't know what to do when they are out of power. Republicans don't know what to do when they're in power. Sort of like the tail wagging the dog. The founding fathers failed to include a trap door where the American people could bail and leave the politicians to themselves including the funding. There should of been a divorce clause where we could separate from them. We certainly have a incompatibility issue.

Steph Staker

I am pleased this happened today with the CLASS deal but I still don't understand the mentality that health insurance is a "right". When I was growing up in the 50's, my parents didn't have health insurance, did yours? As a young adult, my employer offered group health insurance but the employee had to pay the entire premium AND pregnancy/childbirth were not covered! It has only been in the 30 or so years that health insurance has gradually been an accepted "right" when you get a job. I agree with Joe...his last sentence is exactly right!

william mcgarry

Its good that it's finally coming out about these lying SOB's in the Dumbommer administration. They knew that Obamacare wouldn't pass so they had to keep it consealed from the american people just like the budget that was supposed to be done in 2008. We need to get rid of these lying people because no one trust them anymore starting with the so called president who has been lying to the people even before he bought his way into the whitehouse.


I am so sick and tired of misinformed people comparing Jesus and His ministry to Obama and his socialized medicine and bail out plans. If you were really a student of the Word, you would understand that we are not to depend on the government to meet our needs, but depend on God. Jesus also said that the poor will always be among us. You have conveniently left that statement out of your diatribe. If you want to quote the Scriptures, then please do not take them out of context. It is offensive to those of us who consider the entire Word of God, not just what fits our social agenda.

America has always been a benevolent people and I have no doubt that will continue IF we stay a free republic. Obama and his socialism will kill this country, leaving us in the same situation that the former Soviet Union was in for years and are still coming out of.

Konni Burton

Dean, I am baffled. How can parts of this bill be changed without those decisions being made by congress? While I applaud this move, I'm confused as to where the authority is coming from to change a bill that has passed?

Cerise Arbour

That's quite a defeat! I hope we repeal the entire thing. I have no idea why people think/believe that your employer is responsible for any of your healthcare. My goodness, employees have to drive to work, why not make them responsible to pay for your auto insurance too! You have to have a home, make them pay for your homeowners insurance too! And while you have em' down, why not just get a 6 figure salary for some piss poor work ethic.

As an employer let me say that we provide very good insurance. You will not get better insurance anywhere, but I promise you it's not free. Not free to the employee and not free to me! This year our health insurance company canceled us because of the uncertainty of "Obamacare" and this was the 4th insurance company to pull out of the health insurance business altogether in Texas.

Mr. Obama might get what he wants by default. So many insurance companies pulling out that there are only a few giants remaining. (ever heard the UHC commercial saying "we are 70,000 people taking care of 7,000,000 people?) And then those guys will merge and then there will be no one to compete with by the time Obamacare of overturned.

Then more than likely the Feds will sue whoever the giant is for anti-trust or monoply type activities which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and years and years to resolve in the courts. Ask Bill Gates about his experience!

Bottom line....rates are not going down whether the government mishandles our money or the whole thing goes into the free market. The wheels are already in motion.

A year ago our rates rose 85% with a NEGATIVE 34% ratio. How does anyone come up with that unless you know what's coming?

Further, it does not help that many of these healthcare companies give 5 million dollar bonuses to their CEO's and such.

Who is going to care for you? YOU ARE! Take control of your health now and be responsible with your healthcare dollars. It all counts against you in the end; just like car accidents with your car insurance. The more you use it, the more you will pay for it.

Don't count on Medicare! Naturally, most people need more healthcare when they are older. Does anyone really think that 2.45% of your income will cover your medical cost thru Medicare when you are older?

Think what you want. Numbers never lie.

Personally, I'm happy about it! It is not the responsibility of the government to provide you anything but liberty, life, and pursuit of happiness. People just need to get over it and take care of themselves.


I know i will get blasted for this however here it goes. This is the only part of Obama care that i felt was good. If this puppy had of been advertised it would have flown. There are some of us middle income people that don't have much money if any left over after taxes and inflation and don't have any family that will help take care of us that this provision would have helped and we would have been happy to foot the bill on.

Chuck Reynolds

Leroysdad, Obama had a contingency plan for economic emergencies in Obamacare. His plan was that only those who were beginning their work (over fourteen) and those with a few good years left (forty and under) are the only ones that get healthcare. Complete Lives System. Ezekiel Emanuel. Things were not as they seemed. No surprise. The world is changing quickly.

Cerise Arbour

Leroysdad...if you haven't any money left after taxes and inflation, how will you have any money to help foot the bill?

John Pavao


Yes. But these things are the responsibility of the Church, charity and individual, not something to be demanded at the cost of taxation from the government. We are to give, not to take.


Jesus had a special sense of mission to poor and oppressed people. At the outset of his ministry, sometimes referred to as Jesus' mission statement, Jesus stood up in the synagogue at Nazareth and read from the prophet Isaiah:
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-19)
The biographies of Jesus depict him repeatedly reaching out to those at the bottom of the social pyramid--poor people, women, Samaritans, lepers, children, prostitutes and tax collectors. Jesus was also eager to accept people who were well-placed, but he made clear that all, regardless of social position, needed to repent. For this reason, he invited the rich young man to sell all of his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. (Matthew 19:16-30, Luke 18:18-30, Mark 10:17-31)
Jesus commanded, "Love your neighbor." When asked to define "neighbor," Jesus expanded the traditional meaning of the word--defining our neighbor as anyone who is in need, including social outcasts: "But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed." (Luke 14:13)
In his portrayal of the day of judgment, Jesus pictured people from all nations gathered before him, separated into "sheep" and "goats." (Matthew 25:31-46) To the "sheep" he says, "Come you blessed of my Father, for I was hungry and you fed me..." In their astonishment they ask, "When did we do that?" And he answers, "When you did it to the lowliest of my brothers (and sisters)." Conversely, to the "goats" he says, "Out of my sight, you who are condemned, for I was hungry and you did not feed me..."
Jesus himself cared for those in need by feeding the hungry. Crowds of four thousand (Mark 8:1-13) and five thousand (Mark 6:30-44) had assembled to listen to Jesus. They soon became hungry. When his disciples suggested that Jesus send the people away to buy food, he responded by saying "I have compassion on these people..." and "you give them something to eat." He proceeded to perform miracles to feed these large crowds of hungry people.
Adapted from J. Bennett Guess, "Biblical Foundations for Justice Advocacy," UCC Justice and Witness Ministries.

Robert Blackburn

Jesus implored the people, NOT GOVERNMENT, to practice mercy and compassion. He spoke to the heart of the individual person. This is a very difficult thing for a liberal to understand, that one truly gives when he/she sacrifices her/himself to help the poor and afflicted rather than legislate that other peoples money should be seized, misappropriated and diminished to residually help the poor.

Interestingly, liberals insist that the wealthy be forced to give. And the tax deduction is threatened thereby reducing charitable gifts because government (a few powerful people) wants to control the masses. Control and power are the objectives and the residual benefits, crumbs to the disadvantage are afterthoughts to lock-in power and control.

Jesus spoke to the poor woman who gave all she had to help other poor people, but government preaches to the rich and tells the poor that they should be receiving and not giving as the poor woman did.

NancyPelosi and the liberal comb through scripture to justify their socialism, but scripture means nothing to them. It's a political tool to undermine the evangelical support for conservatives who historically give in great amounts compared to liberals.

Chuck Reynolds

Donna, are you not paying attention to the protests going on in hundreds of cities in the US? The youth are rising up. Right now, they are blaming Wall Street. As their options dry up in this financial squeeze, they will turn against the weak just as Hitler did. The older generation of Germany would have sided with you, but the youth did not want to spend any money on those that were not working. Unfortunately, our generations drove this country into debt. We will have to rely on charity, because our government is not sustainable. Obama's plan was that, in a crisis, no one under fourteen or over forty gets any healthcare. The crisis is about to happen. I do not want to frighten you, but you need to understand that the world is changing quickly. Pray and prepare. I wish I could do more to stop it.