"Cataracts, hips, knees and tonsils: NHS begins rationing operations "

[Prodigal_Son1]

I would think Christians would be proud to pay more taxes to support a government that puts some of Christ’s teachings into action through legislation?

 

[didymus]

Socialized / Government medicine in England - - -

" Cataracts, hips, knees and tonsils: NHS begins rationing operations "

One size fits all ? -

independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cataracts-hips-knees-and-tonsils-nhs-begins-rationing-operations-2327268.html

Well, somebody is going to be doing the rationing whether it is gov’t or insurance companies.
Of the examples given cataract surgery is the only one I’d question. Over here our doctors are much quicker on the knife, ordering tests, &c.

• Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.

Sounds reasonable to me. You know those electric scooter chairs advertised on TV? Most of the folks I see using them, their only disability is that they weigh 350-400 lbs.
And a lot of doctors are questioning the value of hip replacements.

• Funding has also been cut in some areas for IVF treatment on the NHS.

I assume we’d all be against gov’t paying for this in the fist place.

Birmingham is looking at reducing operations in gastroenterology, gynaecology, dermatology and orthopaedics. Parts of east London were among the first to introduce rationing, where some patients are being referred for homeopathic treatments instead of conventional treatment.

Well, referring patients for quack cure sounds pretty scary but assessing if procedures are necessary, depending on how it is done, is hardly unreasonable.
You may not be aware that your insurance always monitors your doctor to see how many prescriptions he writes, tests he orders, &c.

I’m not a fan of gov’t medicine but we who meekly submit to the rule of CEOs shouldn’t cast stones.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I would think Christians would be proud to pay more taxes to support a government that puts some of Christ’s teachings into action through legislation?

So you’ll let non-Christians off the tax hook?

When did Christ act through legislation?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So you’ll let non-Christians off the tax hook?

When did Christ act through legislation?

The non-Christians are affected through the democratic process, just as Christians are affected by the decisions of non-Christians. We are in a battle to compel morality, according to the teachings of Christ, on the non-Christians on the issue of abortion. Why is it different to compel other teachings of Christ through the same avenue we are battling the issue of abortion on?

When did Christ say not to give all that we have to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, or care for the sick?

Some Christians seem to chose to protect the secular in a system where we have amalgamated spiritual with secular. The reason appears to be to protect ‘my’ money.

 

[maryjk]

When did Christ say not to give all that we have to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, or care for the sick?

When did Christ say to do all of that at the point of a sword?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Some Christians seem to chose to protect the secular in a system where we have amalgamated spiritual with secular. The reason appears to be to protect ‘my’ money.

And some Christians would have ‘others’ do their charity for them.

 

[SamH]

I would think Christians would be proud to pay more taxes to support a government that puts some of Christ’s teachings into action through legislation?

What government is doing that?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

When did Christ say to do all of that at the point of a sword?

Give all that you have and follow Him appears to be an appeal for willingness, just as He gave all that He had at the point of a sword.

And some Christians would have ‘others’ do their charity for them.

You are mistaken. I, or anyone else, would not be excluded through a fair system of taxing and services rendered from, and to, all. As for non-Christians, isn’t a great form of teaching through our own example of giving willingly?

As I say, I personally see the problem appears to be an unwillingness to share with others through taxation, especially when I see others that appear to come to the defense of the ‘non-Christians’ having to participate in taxing for social programs, but justify them participating in Christian morality on other issues. There seems to be a certain hypocrisy to that view, in my honest opinion.

Christ’s teachings are not ‘democratic’.

Many use the term ‘socialism’ in what seems to be an attempt to sway others in these type arguments, yet the early Church, according to scriptures, tell us they sold all they had and gave to each according to their needs. What happened to the couple that sold all they had but reserved some of the proceeds for themselves?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What government is doing that?

That’s what this discussion is about. We are talking about legislation, and our support through our votes. Why would Christians oppose taxation that would, in part, provide social programs that seem to be in line with Christ’s teachings to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the poor, and care for the sick?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Christ’s teachings are not ‘democratic’.

Many use the term ‘socialism’ in what seems to be an attempt to sway others in these type arguments, yet the early Church, according to scriptures, tell us they sold all they had and gave to each according to their needs. What happened to the couple that sold all they had but reserved some of the proceeds for themselves?

You really have a hard time grasping the difference between ‘give’ and ‘take’.

You want to take and rename it give.

At the point of a sword is spot on.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You really have a hard time grasping the difference between ‘give’ and ‘take’.

You want to take and rename it give.

At the point of a sword is spot on.

As Christians we should not assume our help, even through taxation, is being taken if it goes to help others. We should be glad to give to help others.

Your point supports what I’ve been saying. Some are looking at the help as being taken away from them, in the form of money they consider only for themselves and unwilling to share. Others view it as giving so that more can have a quality of life too.

We affect legislation with our votes. Voting to give to others is not taking, especially when we vote for things that will come from our own pockets as well.

 

[St_Francis]

Lets avoid Misleading Hype; We have Postings here By British National Health Member refuting all the misleading And False hype. Anyone Who Needs important Medical aid Gets it quickly. And Our USA Massively Expoensive (28% of our Entire Economy, vs 5% for next biggest spending :France) is rated 28th best results in the world. And European Nations have very major independent (Non-Government) Doctors, etc. German Universal National Health is Based on commercial Insurance Companies, Medicine, and Doctors (I have 2 MD Cousins there) Regulated to prevent our massive Profits of in the 20’s % or More.
Our Vastly more expensive Health Business System is rated 28th in the world, and we have Far Higher Infant Death than any European Country. Only Mexico has a higher Infant Mortality Now in North America, but they Bagan National Health for Pregnant Women last year. Canada also began Provincial Health recently. Only we, in the Richest Nation in the World, do Not have Universal, One payer Health System. Just the Facts Other Nations know, we avoid.

1. Where is your 28% od the economy number coming from? Because what I have always heard is 13%, which is less than half what you are saying.
2. When you look at where something is compared, you have to consider the criteria used. For example, the WHO rankings were heavily weighted in favor of universal health care nations, counting cost factors as a single entity as well as including it in the general health section. However, the US came out number one in terms of responsiveness.

Another thing to consider is different rates of illnesses. A lower percentage of people die of cancer in the UK than in the US, but a lower percentage of people who actually get cancer die in the US–the first statistic is skewed by the fact that the rate of cancer in the UK is much lower than in the US.

Nad as to the jnfant mortality rates being higher in the US–1. we have a higher rate of pregnancies with poor prognosis (mothers are substance abusers, very young, etc) than most of the European countries; and 2. we are more likely to resucitate an infant born with problems such as prematurity than they are in other nations.

Consider too that ranking according to medical advances would probably put the US at number one, and these advances benefit all the other natiins as well.

 

[St_Francis]

…Sounds reasonable to me. You know those electric scooter chairs advertised on TV? Most of the folks I see using them, their only disability is that they weigh 350-400 lbs.
And a lot of doctors are questioning the value of hip replacements…
Oh, wow, people who have difficulty or pain walking gain weight; amazing!

A lot of people with those scooters are very heavy, but that is often related to medications or to conditions which cause both problems walking and weight gain.

I knew a woman who had a very painful problem with her hip who gained a lot of weight and had a wheelchair–after her hip replacement she could walk again and lost the weight.

 

[maryjk]

As Christians we should not assume our help, even through taxation, is being taken if it goes to help others. We should be glad to give to help others.

We are glad to give to help others. What we are not glad to do is to give to the government. You assumption is that the government helps others. I don’t believe that is true.

 

[SamH]

That’s what this discussion is about. We are talking about legislation, and our support through our votes. Why would Christians oppose taxation that would, in part, provide social programs that seem to be in line with Christ’s teachings to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the poor, and care for the sick?

So we vote to people in place so we can give them money and hope they spend it like we would like them too? Sounds complicated and wasteful.

Wouldn’t it be easier to use the charitible organizations that already exist and have a proven track record of doing what they say they are going to do and do it efficiently instead of the government that has a long history of NOT doing what they say they will do and wasting trillions in the process?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We are glad to give to help others. What we are not glad to do is to give to the government. You assumption is that the government helps others. I don’t believe that is true.

Do you believe the ‘government’ can help on the issue of abortion?

The government does have social programs that have helped people for decades. Just because we have been fortunate enough not to have to seek government help does not mean it does not exist.

The Pope has called on ‘governments’ to help provide healthcare as the private sector cannot fulfill the obligations needed in that respect.

 

[maryjk]

Do you believe the ‘government’ can help on the issue of abortion?

The government does have social programs that have helped people for decades. Just because we have been fortunate enough not to have to seek government help does not mean it does not exist.

The Pope has called on ‘governments’ to help provide healthcare as the private sector cannot fulfill the obligations needed in that respect.

Right now the government gives money to Planned Parenthood. That way PP can use other funds to perform abortions. Thank you government funding.

 

[SamH]

Right now the government gives money to Planned Parenthood. That way PP can use other funds to perform abortions. Thank you government funding.

It appears the government is “helping” the abortion issue - just not in the way most Americans would like them to.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So we vote to people in place so we can give them money and hope they spend it like we would like them too? Sounds complicated and wasteful.

Wouldn’t it be easier to use the charitible organizations that already exist and have a proven track record of doing what they say they are going to do and do it efficiently instead of the government that has a long history of NOT doing what they say they will do and wasting trillions in the process?

Complicated would be cutting existing social programs to be replaced in other areas, having a time that those needing help would do without.

We turn to the government to end abortion, yet we find it complicated and wasteful to utilize the government of a ‘Christian’ nation to provide social services.

Why did the Pope call on the WHO, through the various governments, to provide healthcare?

Pope Calls Health Care An ‘Inalienable Right,’ Urges World Governments To Provide Universal Coverage

At an international papal conference on health care yesterday at the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI and other Catholic church leaders said it is the “moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.” Saying access to adequate medical care is one of the “inalienable rights” of man, the pope said, “Justice in health care should be a priority of governments and international institutions”:

The pope lamented the great inequalities in health care around the globe. While people in many parts of the world aren’t able to receive essential medications or even the most basic care, in industrialized countries there is a risk of “pharmacological, medical and surgical consumerism” that leads to “a cult of the body,” the pope said.

“The care of man, his transcendent dignity and his inalienable rights” are issues that should concern Christians, the pope said.

Because an individual’s health is a “precious asset” to society as well as to himself, governments and other agencies should seek to protect it by “dedicating the equipment, resources and energy so that the greatest number of people can have access.”

In a separate statement, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said, “Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care,” adding that minimal levels of medical care are “a fundamental human right.” “Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care,” the cardinal explained, saying that, “The governments of richer nations with good health care available should practice more solidarity with their own disadvantaged citizens.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Right now the government gives money to Planned Parenthood. That way PP can use other funds to perform abortions. Thank you government funding.

You’re avoiding my point, or not understanding. How can we look to the government to end abortion, if we cannot trust the government to provide social programs for those in need?