Wednesday, November 6, 2013

The Limits of Human Equality

Oh, hi there, Internet. What I have for you today is a paper that I just wrote on the misunderstanding of human equality. Enjoy:

The Limits of Human Equality
The United States’ Declaration of Independence states that it is self-evident that “all men are created equal” (Jefferson 83), but nobody knows exactly how they are equal. Equality is an idea that is widely misunderstood and misused, especially when it is applied to social and political ideology. Equality, simply put, means sameness between things or groups. In a mathematical equation, one side of the equation is the same as the other. Two equally measured glasses of water have the same amount of water in each. Any two people are equal in that they have bodies that work in the same basic ways. One of the great ethical debates of all time concerns how equality applies to humans beyond the obvious physical similarities that they all share. The philosophical ideas dealing with human equality beyond physical sameness are complex and controversial because all people cannot agree on the limits of the intangible aspects of equality.  
The major misunderstanding of human equality is that it exists in a clearly defined set of ways beyond shared physical human qualities. All people breathe, eat, sleep, and have bodies. They are equal in those ways but all people may or may not have the same rights, abilities, dignity, or deservedness any particular treatment. These and other aspects of human equality beyond obvious physical similarities are invisible, intangible, and debatable. These factors are the ones that are determined by ideologies and philosophies, which vary from society to society and from person to person. A universal set of abstract human similarities is nonexistent if there is no definite, universal, authoritative, and foundational guide. Individuals must therefore base their own personal definitions of equality’s limits upon the ideologies they like and agree with. This is an unfortunate reality in a relativistic world.
Because of the many viewpoints on nonphysical human equality, the subject is debated often. The area of this topic that seems to be most often discussed is the idea that rights are the primary abstract factor of equality. People disagree widely regarding what rights all people are equally entitled to, though. Some believe that a law-abiding person has a right to live while a murderous criminal deserves to die. Others consider the two of them as equally possessing a right to life and to mercy. Others consider a fetus equal to a grown person in its rights as a human being. The disagreement about abstract equality mostly concerns human rights, but rights are determined by governments and other authorities based on their own judgment of what is true and just. People cannot even collectively agree on what or who rights come from. Human rights are therefore not a reliable component of a universally acceptable definition of human equality.
In a significant practical misuse of the term, equality is also defined by individuals and groups in ways that benefit their own motives. In a largely relativistic society like America, people use the idea of equality as a tool chiefly to advance their agendas. For example, some declare homosexual couples and heterosexual couples equal in the way they ought to be viewed and treated. Others declare men and women equal in physical and intellectual abilities[1] ( These groups confidently utilize the idea of equality to help persuade doubters that their ideas are right and true. Many people believe that all people are equally entitled to the same rights, as expressed in the United States’ Declaration of Independence and its Constitution. The founding fathers used the idea of human equality to inspire the American people, instill a sense of unity, and “to set up a maxim for free society” (Lincoln).
These ideas are fragile, though, because intelligent, informed people can disagree with them. No person in his right mind would argue that two glasses with the same amount of liquid in each are not equal. Neither would that person argue that two plus two does not equal four. He might, however, argue against the idea that homosexual love and heterosexual love are equal. He may even take the position that all people do not share the same rights, that a person does not have a right to life if he is a murderous criminal, or that he does not have a right to keep and bear a firearm as the United States Constitution says he does (“Constitution” 21). These are the thoughts of many intelligent men who may or may not be philosophically or morally misguided. 
It seems, then, that without a universal set of moral and philosophical guidelines, there can be no definition of abstract human equality’s limits even among wise and intelligent people. It also seems that if all ideologies are acceptable and if a person is free to pick and choose his favorite based on his personal taste, then none of them are true or valid because none is greater than the other. Therefore, under such circumstances, there is no true non-physical equality among humans. There is only physical and obvious similarity.
This does not mean that there is no true definition of equality, because there is such a thing as truth. This is made clear by the reality that certain things are indisputable – for example, the fact that two plus two equals four. Unfortunately, though, ideologies and philosophies are not as easily defined as true or false. There are some ideas that all people will never collectively recognize as right, and this reality is the natural source of all debate – a human activity that exists because of man’s natural inclination towards conflict. Because abstract human equality is an idea that is wide open for personal opinion, its limits cannot be solidly determined in a world full of people holding varying worldviews. Until one ideology is universally accepted as the singular and absolute truth, equality can only be defined by the obvious physical similarities that all human beings share.

Works Cited
Miss, Angela M., ed. The Belmont Abbey College Reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. Print.
“Mission and Principles.” Feminist Majority Foundation. Feminist Majority Foundation, 2013. Web. 22 Oct. 2013
United States. Cong. Senate. Constitution of the United States. Hearings 111th Cong., 1st sess. Washington: Joint Committee on Printing. 29 July 2009. Print.

[1] Remarkably, the same group often expresses these two ideas. The mission statement of the “Feminist Majority Foundation” includes support for homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual individuals.

Monday, May 6, 2013

The Real Presence pt. 1: In Defense of the Eucharist

(probably my favorite Mass painting ever)
Hey there, internet!
In this edition of Dat Blog, I am going to discuss a topic that's near and dear to my Catholic heart: the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is Jesus' body and blood veiled by the form of bread and wine (partially because if it actually looked, tasted, smelled, and felt like flesh and blood, most everybody would be terrified of it). At the Climax of the Catholic Mass, Jesus, through the priest, changes the consecrated bread and wine into His aforementioned precious body and blood. For more information on what the Eucharist is, click here.

Now, this is a subject that is by nature very hard to understand, and I'm going to try to explain some things about it and just say a lot of things about it for you. First, in this "part one," let's look at some reasons for believing that the Eucharist is what Jesus and the Catholic Church say it is. Here is my defense for the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist:

EXHIBIT A: The Gospel of John, Chapter 6 verses 26 through 70.

In this episode of St. John's gospel, Jesus has a crowd of thousands gathered with Him and He's preaching and teaching. Read the passage then come back.

In this discourse, Jesus says multiple times that He is the bread of life. The first time He says that is in verse 35:

"Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.' "

 He keeps on going back to that point and says it more explicitly and clearly each time. The second time he makes the claim is in verses 48-51:

"I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

He's using language that seems to indicate that he means business.
Verse 52:

"The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

Jesus could easily have explained himself as having been speaking symbolically, because the Jews would have been seriously grossed out by this, given the Jewish laws regarding blood and dead bodies. 
But he doesn't. In 53-58 he really drives the point home that he's being serious.

"Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54. Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b
58. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

*The greek word used for "eats" here isn't that of a human just eating a meal, but of an animal "gnawing" or "chewing." This kind of explicit language wouldn't have been used if this was just a long, drawn out symbolic talk. 

If Jesus is understood to be speaking symbolically throughout this passage, then what is one to make of verse 55? "For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." Jesus doesn't take an analogy this far anywhere else. 

Now let's take a look at how Jesus' disciples react to all this.Verse 60:

"Then many of his disciples who were listening said, 'This saying is hard; who can accept it?'"

and then later in John 6:66 (note the numbering), after Jesus says some words about how they did not and could not understand, not explaining himself as having been speaking only symbolically, "many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him." Jesus could have called them back and explained Himself, saying "come on, guys, it was only a symbol, calm down." But no, he let them go because they had heard the truth as it is and rejected it. Verses 67 through 69:

"Jesus then said to the Twelve, 'Do you also want to leave?'
68. Simon Peter answered him, 'Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.'"

He still doesn't take anything back or explain any symbolism. He clearly said what he meant, and the apostles, even though they could not understand, remained faithful, just as we should always remain faithful when we encounter things from God that we don't understand. 

This discourse is reinforced as evidence for the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist by the accounts of the last supper, in which Jesus said that "this is my body," not "this represents my body in some obscure way, so have crackers and grape juice at church sometimes." Further, in 1 Corintians 10:16 and and 11:23-30, St. Paul talks about the Lord's Supper in a way that doesn't suggest that it's symbolic. Note, especially, 11:27: 

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord."

This is more than a nice meal to commemorate Jesus and bring our happy family together.

EXHIBIT B: Foreshadowing

Let's look at the Passover for a minute. God had specific instructions for dealing with the sacrificial lamb. Exodus 12:3-8:

"3. Tell the whole community of Israel: On the tenth of this month every family must procure for itself a lamb, one apiece for each household.
4. If a household is too small for a lamb, it along with its nearest neighbor will procure one, and apportion the lamb’s cost in proportion to the number of persons, according to what each household consumes.
5. Your lamb must be a year-old male and without blemish. You may take it from either the sheep or the goats.
6. You will keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, and then, with the whole community of Israel assembled, it will be slaughtered during the evening twilight.
7. They will take some of its blood and apply it to the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it.
8. They will consume its meat that same night, eating it roasted with unleavened bread and bitter herbs." 

Jesus is the new, living sacrificial lamb. 
After the lamb was slaughtered and the blood had done its job, the sacrifice was to be eaten. The sacrifice itself was to be eaten. God didn't instruct the Jews to eat Matzah as a representation of the lamb's meat.

In a similar way Jesus was slaughtered and His precious blood did its job, and Catholics consume Him at mass in a kind of new passover meal.

(Also, if you want to really stretch the foreshadowing here, it might be observed that Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the last supper on the same night he was betrayed and began his passion, just as the lamb was consumed the night it was sacrificed. Again, that's stretching it and sure doesn't prove anything, just thought I'd throw that in there.)

Now, briefly, let's take a look at some things about Jesus' birth. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which means "house of bread." He was placed in a manger, which is a feeding trough for sheep. You get the idea. Jesus is the bread, and He is food for His flock.


Saint Ignatius of Antioch was the Bishop of Antioch who lived in the first and second centuries. It's believed that he was a disciple of St. John the evangelist himself. In his epistle to Smyrnaeans in 110 AD, he wrote the following:

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes."

This isn't scripture, but it is historical support for the validity of the Eucharist. Here we have an authoritative figure in the church just around 80 years after the death of Christ speaking about the real presence. Also in 110 AD in an epistle to the Romans, he wrote the following:

"I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life."

The early church leaders did not see the Lords Supper as a symbolic memorial. They acknowledged that this was the real deal, just like Jesus said it was. I suggest reading more writings of the early church leaders for more information on where the Church stood on doctrine in the early years of Christianity. Here is a page with several quotes regarding this which you can take or leave once you've realized their legitimacy. 

I do hope this has been informative and enlightening so far. If you have questions, comments, or concerns, stick them below in the comment section. Stay tuned for the next installments on the real presence, in which I will answer frequently asked questions, supply you with links to great Eucharist-related resources, talk about the implications of consuming and being united with the God of the Universe, and possibly go on even more because there's a lot to talk about with this subject. Have a nice day!

God bless,


Dat Blogger

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

"The Picture of Dorian Gray:" A Christian Perspective

Hey there, internet. In this edition of Dat Blog, I'm going to share with you a short essay which I wrote that analyzes Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray from a Christian perspective. Enjoy:

The Picture of Dorian Gray: A Christian Perspective
            Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray is a truly remarkable and strange novel. The protagonist, Dorian Gray, is a very handsome young man. He is described by many as beautiful and captures the heart of an artist named Basil Halward, who paints a portrait of Dorian. After a friend of Basil’s, Lord Henry Wotton, influences Dorian to consider beauty as the only thing that matters in life, Dorian becomes dismayed at seeing the painting. This is because the painting would remain beautiful while he would age and wither. He wishes out loud that the situation would be reversed and that he would remain young while the painting would deteriorate.
            As the story continues, it becomes evident that Dorian’s wish has become a reality. After harshly breaking up a romantic involvement with an actress named Sibyl Vane due to his realization that he was only interested in her for her beauty on the stage, he notices that the painting has changed. The likeness of his face is now slightly sneering. The story goes on further and we witness the continuous degeneration of Dorian’s morality and the disappearance of his conscience. It begins to seem as if his soul is no longer with him and that he is not capable of moral thinking. When Dorian Gray wished that the painting would bear his deterioration, perhaps in a way his soul was transferred into the painting. The image would now bear the burden of his sins, becoming more and more grotesque as his soul becomes more and more damaged.
            The Picture of Dorian Gray can be analyzed from a Catholic perspective, which brings to the forefront some interesting aspects. First of all, it can be inferred that the transfer of Dorian Gray’s soul into the canvas portrait is his own death. This is because death is, simply put, the separation of the soul from the body. As Dorian lives his life with less and less of a conscience his behavior becomes motivated only by desire for pleasure, which is characteristic of an animal. Dorian Gray, at this point, has changed into either an animal or a zombie of sorts. At the beginning of the novel, he is an unspoiled, unblemished specimen of a human being. By the end of the story, he has become a horribly internally disfigured person, which is manifested by the change in the painting. Having essentially died, Dorian is an illustration of what happens to our souls when we sin continuously and unrepentantly. We start out as innocent souls with only original sin, but when we choose to live sinful lives our souls become rotted as Dorian Gray’s soul became rotted.
            In a way, the Lord Henry Wotton character can be seen as a representation of the Devil. He holds many traits embodied by the Devil. He is charming, egotistic, verbally seductive, and his character really doesn’t change from the beginning of the story to the end. Lord Henry doesn’t directly cause any of the atrocities committed in the book, but rather was the catalyst for Dorian Gray’s criminal activities, just as the Devil does not usually directly and physically commit crime himself but influences weak human beings to do the evil that he wants done. In the opening of the book, Lord Henry infiltrates Dorian’s mind with deeply flawed ideas that are damaging to his morality, just as the Devil did in the Garden of Eden. These ideals act as a poison that slowly eats away at Dorian’s conscience, which is very much like what happens when we surround ourselves with sinful things, and very much like what happened to Adam and Eve when they were tempted. Dorian, na├»ve and without any kind of guard up, easily falls to the ideas planted in his head by Lord Henry.
            The Picture of Dorian Gray, when examined through “Catholic lenses,” appears more illustrations of human spirituality and man’s ancient and constant battle with the Devil. Without a strong moral guidance and protection by our peers and by God, we fall very easily to the Satan’s lures and subtle attacks. This is why we must always surround ourselves and other people who are spiritually vulnerable, especially children, with Godly people and things, always staying prepared for the evil one’s wiles.

Dat Blogger

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

ObamaCare's Negative Effects on Patients and Doctors

Dear internet,
In this edition of Dat Blog, I'm going to share with you the paper I just wrote on ObamaCare. Enjoy!

Peter Kobet
Chris Brincefield
English 112
15 October 2012
ObamaCare’s Negative Effects on Patients and Doctors
In March of 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also popularly known as “ObamaCare,” into law. This health care reform bill is immensely complex and has been the subject of much heated debate for the past few years. But in all the shouting and finger pointing among the pundits and politicians, one very important aspect of the law is not brought up nearly as often as it ought to be: The ways in which the new rules and regulations that come from the PPACA will affect those working in the medical field along with their patients. When one takes a break from discussing the political aspects of the bill and focuses on what the doctors and patients think of it, it becomes apparent that the PPACA will be destructive to the American health care system.
Several important factors involving patients and doctors must be considered when discussing this issue. The opinions of actual doctors and patients must be taken into account, not just the assertions of politicians from both the left and the right. The bill itself must be examined. The majority of doctors do not approve of the PPACA, as made apparent by multiple surveys. Quality of care will diminish (despite the president’s claims). The vision of a medical utopia behind this bill is an unworkable one. Some mandates from the law result in conflict with orthodox religious organizations. All of these factors ultimately funnel down onto the patients whose liberties are at stake.
A survey of 699 doctors across the country has shown that eighty-three percent are considering quitting the medical field altogether over the PPACA, and eighty-five percent said that the patient-doctor relationship is suffering and getting worse under extensive rules and regulations like the ones extended by this law (“Doctors’ Attitudes on Medicine”). These statistics have been found because there are several serious problems hidden within the fine print of the PPACA.
New government rules and regulations in medical practice lead to more red tape and overwhelming paperwork. At each visit to the doctor’s office, the doctor has to sift through a pile of mostly unnecessary records and forms. For example, if a person goes into the doctor’s office to have a rash examined, part of the visit will be spent filling out forms that are completely irrelevant to the patient’s current problem. A heart transplant surgeon named William Frist discussed this issue with his internist who said, “At each visit, I am required to tell the government whether the patient I’m seeing had a flu shot last winter! Please help me understand how that improves care” (qtd. in Frist). When more time is spent on filling out extraneous paperwork, less time is available for actually caring for the patient. When less time is spent on caring for a patient, the quality of the care decreases.
Many physicians have been rejecting more and more patients covered by Medicaid, Medicare, and even private insurance because of bureaucratization, red tape, and extra paperwork involved in those systems as well as the fact that there is already a shortage of physicians. According to a survey of 4,326 doctors by Sandra Decker of the National Center for Health Statistics, about a third of doctors are not accepting new Medicaid patients, and almost that many are not accepting even privately insured patients for the same reasons (Roy). Adopting the PPACA will further the impersonal and inefficient system seen in Medicare and Medicaid and will increase health care-related dilemmas.
Under Obamacare, everyone is theoretically covered for any medical care he or she might need. That is the central idea behind the bill: No one should go without health care if he or she cannot afford it. And that is good. Doctors agree with that idea. In an ideal world, everybody would be covered. The problem is that it cannot work, especially with the United States economy being in the state that it is in today. Margaret Thatcher once said that socialist governments “always run out of other people’s money.” With Obamacare, which is essentially a socialist government operation, the United States runs out of both money and doctors. The United States simply does not have enough money to be spent on health care for all. The cost of treatment will result in higher taxes and the cost of medical care will only go up.
Another way that the PPACA will affect doctors is in the case of religiously orthodox institutions, especially Catholic hospitals. Under the new regulations in the PPACA, Catholic hospitals will be required to perform abortions and sterilizations, as well as give out contraceptives and provide them in employee insurance plans. All of these things go directly against fundamental Catholic religious beliefs and the consciences of faithful Catholic doctors and employees. The imposition of providing these services goes against the freedom of religion promised in the constitution. The Catholic Church will not back down and comply on this issue. Conflicts coming from this situation are sure to grow exponentially, and over 30 cases have already been filed against the government based on this mandate. According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, “there are 36 cases and over 100 individuals representing hospitals, universities, businesses, schools, and people all speaking with one voice to affirm the freedom of religion guaranteed in the Constitution” (“Mandate Information”).
One must consider what doctors think about ObamaCare. The PPACA was not written and passed by doctors, but by bureaucrats with no experience in the medical field and no knowledge of how health care works. This is one reason why so many medical practitioners are unhappy with the bill. Seventy five percent of 688 doctors surveyed at “” disapprove of it (“New Survey”). A substantial number of medical associations have decried the bill and its effects. Mark Kellen, M.D., the ex-president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, said that “the entire logic of [ObamaCare] is flawed and is based on decreasing patient choices and ultimately transferring control to the federal government” and that “the bill has no laudable parts” (qtd. in “The ‘Health Care Reform’ Bill”).
Under the PPACA, around thirty million people will be added to the health care system without adding a single doctor. The Association of American Medical Colleges has predicted that “the United States [will face] a shortage of more than 90,000 physicians by 2020 – a number that will grow to more than 130,000 by 2025 (“Fixing the Doctor Shortage”).” The country simply does not have enough new people graduating from medical schools to fill the demands of this law. That number does not even take into consideration the previously mentioned eighty-three percent of doctors who consider quitting. When a doctor has to see more patients in a day as a result of people coming in for treatment covered by their mandatorily purchased insurance, he has even less time to see each one and will become severely overburdened by patients. This is also harmful for patients because it will likely result in a doctor’s office being run similarly to a DMV office where patients will have to wait in line and take a number.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care act violates patients’ freedoms in more than one way. First and foremost, it does not make sense to require people to spend money that they do not have on something they do not want or need, which is health insurance in this case. If a young man is starting a business and wants to lessen expenses by waiving health insurance, too bad. Section 5000A of the act requires that he pay a $750 fine if he wishes to opt out of coverage (Patient 5000A c.3.A). Also, under section 1302, women who cannot have children must buy a policy that covers maternity services, teetotalers must buy a policy that includes substance abuse coverage, and single men without children must pay for pediatric coverage (Patient 1302.a.1). The list goes on. The insurance plans Americans will be made to buy will be a one-size-fits-all deal. This is an example of the government having far, far too much control over American citizens’ lives today. (Hogberg)
Health care reform in the United States is needed, but not the reform that ObamaCare will bring. In an ideal patient-doctor dynamic, the doctor is able to focus all of his or her attention on the patient. Quality medical care is provided and the patient is successfully treated without going broke paying for the coverage. With ObamaCare, the doctor has an array of things distracting his focus. Quality of care diminishes due to shortage of doctors and added patients. Treatment is not always given properly due to physician distractions and waiting lists like those found in the health care systems of Canada and the United Kingdom. The country, and therefore patients, will sink further into debt when insurance and taxes cannot pay for everyone’s coverage.
ObamaCare does not fix the problems in the United States’ health care system; it amplifies them by furthering the same failing systems that are already in place. It does not provide quality care for all as the politicians who passed it have continued to say; in fact, it does just the opposite. The United States needs a health care plan that is not comprised of two thousand pages of fine print. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is, and will continue to be, destructive to doctors, patients, the medical system of the United States, and the entire country; therefore, the bill must be repealed and replaced, lest the United States be brought to its knees.

 Works Cited
 “Doctors’ Attitudes on the Future of Medicine.” Doctor Patient Medical Association Foundation. n.p., June 2012. Web. 3 Oct. 2012.
“Fixing the Doctor Shortage.” Association of American Medical Colleges. n.p., 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2012
Frist, Dr. William H. “What My Doctor Thinks of ObamaCare.” The Week. The Week Publications, 29 August 2012. Web. 3 Oct. 2012.
“HHS Mandate Information Central.” The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. n.p., n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2012
Hogberg, David. “20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Your Freedoms.” Investors Business   Daily. n.p., 21 Mar. 2010. Web. 3 Oct. 2012.
“New Survey: 75% of Physicians Largely Oppose the President’s  Health Care Law.” n.p., n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2012.
Roy, Avik. “‘Health Affairs’ Study: One Third of Doctors Won’t Accept New Medicaid Patients.” Forbes. 7 Aug. 2012. Web. 13 Oct. 2012
“There are ‘No Laudable Parts’ in the ‘Health Care Reform Bill,’ say AAPS Members.” Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Online. n.p., 26 July 2006. Web. 13 Oct. 2012.
United States. Cong. Senate. House. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Hearings 111th Cong., 2nd sess. Washington: GPO, 2010. Web. 

Dat Blogger