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

[iamrefreshed]

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?

And you’re confusing law and charity.

Much like you are confused about give and take.

 

[maryjk]

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?

The same way I can look for the government to outlaw murder.

Do you really trust that the government is the best option for providing help to those in need? I think they should be the last choice.

Laws to protect someone’s life? yes. Stealing money so a small percentage goes to the poor? No.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The same way I can look for the government to outlaw murder.

Do you really trust that the government is the best option for providing help to those in need? I think they should be the last choice.

Laws to protect someone’s life? yes. Stealing money so a small percentage goes to the poor? No.

What is better, giving to the thousands and thousands of different charities, or giving to the one entity that has the most outreach?

Again, considering voting against helping social programs through taxation and classifying it as stealing is not what I consider giving.

Was the Pope wrong to call on governments to prioritize healthcare?

 

[SamH]

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.

Haven’t you heard, the government of the US is most definately not Christian. There’s more than a few Supreme Court rulings on this.

 

[SamH]

Was the Pope wrong to call on governments to prioritize healthcare?

There’s more than one way to prioritize. As you can see in England the government did this and look what it got them - people fleeing to the US for basic health care.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And you’re confusing law and charity.

Much like you are confused about give and take.

Instead of ad hominem statements on whether or not I’m confused, why not offer statements that might change my mind on the subject?

Christ’s law was to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the poor and care for the sick. It appears you’re arguing against those things if it becomes the law of a nation that calls itself a ‘Christian’ nation. How are the two separated, by what might be taken from ourselves to be shared with others? To me, that seems like a protection of what is ours only, when I see arguments of what about the ‘non-Christians?’

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There’s more than one way to prioritize. As you can see in England the government did this and look what it got them - people fleeing to the US for basic health care.

If people are ‘fleeing’ to the US, they can well afford it. What we don’t see is the average income, or less, fleeing anywhere.

Stopping any type plan, and proposing cuts into an existing system, is not prioritizing. It really seems to be an unwillingness to share behind an excuse of ‘it cannot be done’.

The English government put the NHS into place following WWII. It seems to have served a purpose for quite sometime now.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Christ’s law was to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the poor and care for the sick. It appears you’re arguing against those things if it becomes the law of a nation that calls itself a ‘Christian’ nation. How are the two separated, by what might be taken from ourselves to be shared with others? To me, that seems like a protection of what is ours only, when I see arguments of what about the ‘non-Christians?’

The difference you either fail to see or choose to ignore is that word I highlighted above.

Christ did not command to take. He commanded to give.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The difference you either fail to see of choose to ignore is that word I highlighted above.

Christ did not command to take. He commanded to give.

And some of us are arguing against a form of being able to give, while using semantics to try and justify not sharing with others.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Haven’t you heard, the government of the US is most definately not Christian. There’s more than a few Supreme Court rulings on this.

Then why do we bother this ‘non-Christian’ nation with any of Christ’s teachings, including abortion?

The fact is, the majority of Americans identify themselves as ‘Christians’. The people make up this nation.

 

[iamrefreshed]

And some of us are arguing against a form of being able to give.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We can vote for legislation to use tax monies to help those less fortunate, which is giving by agreeing to taxes being used for social programs.

Who are we to protect from having it ‘taken’ from them with our votes?

 

[iamrefreshed]

We can vote for legislation to use tax monies to help those less fortunate, which is giving by agreeing to taxes being used for social programs.

Who are we to protect from having it ‘taken’ from them with our votes?

I’m sure you have donated to charity. Do you usually check how much actually makes it to the needy?

You seriously think the government is efficient?

I vote you have all your goods ‘taken’ so I can ‘give’ to the needy.

 

[stevegravy]

We can vote for legislation to use tax monies to help those less fortunate, which is giving by agreeing to taxes being used for social programs.

Who are we to protect from having it ‘taken’ from them with our votes?

Your argument is really about the proper role of government in a free society. To establish that understanding here is a test about basic principles:

My grandmother needs some medicines maybe a cataract surgery but she is a little short of cash. I don’t want my grandmother to suffer. Now, lets say you are walking down the street and I whip out my 22 stub nose and demand all the money you got or I’ll kill you. I also tell you, because I want you to feel good about this, you are doing your Christian duty and need to be happy about my robbing you. I want you to be happy knowing your money will go to pay for grannies meds and surgery with 60% going to me for the cost of my bullets, gun and other overhead expenses.

Your test question…ready… am I doing God’s work, a great act of charity or am I an armed robber?

 

[Warrior1979]

I seriously doubt that would be the case. If the symptoms are not controlled by antibiotics on first bout, the GP would immediately refer the child for surgery.

We’ll you’d be wrong. One of my daughters had strep throat six times this year, and the doctors didn’t consider that enough to have her tonsils removed.

 

[stevegravy]

We’ll you’d be wrong. One of my daughters had strep throat six times this year, and the doctors didn’t consider that enough to have her tonsils removed.

Well back in the day my kids got tonsillitis, twice in a year, out came the tonsils. That was twenty years ago. Insurance companies are using the NICE criteria and other government guideline they can find to cut back on cost.

 

[Warrior1979]

If people are ‘fleeing’ to the US, they can well afford it.

I’ve met Europeans that have come to the U.S. for treatment. They are wealthy. The reason they came here is because of severe health issues, such as cancer. The treatment here is naturally better. Care is rationed (or “prioritized”) whether one wishes to believe it or not. When faced with treated 1,000 for a flu, or giving someone chemo for a year, the 1,000 people with the flu win.

What we don’t see is the average income, or less, fleeing anywhere.

Middle class people do go to other countries for various reasons. The reason is almost exclusively that the treatment is not covered by insurance, and it can be done for a fraction of the cost overseas, even when considering the costs of flying and staying there.

 

[SamH]

If people are ‘fleeing’ to the US, they can well afford it. What we don’t see is the average income, or less, fleeing anywhere.

Agreed. The poor and middle class are stuck with the service the government is dishing out. I’m glad you see it my way.

 

[SamH]

Who are we to protect from having it ‘taken’ from them with our votes?

Indeed. It seems you are coming around.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Your argument is really about the proper role of government in a free society. To establish that understanding here is a test about basic principles:

My grandmother needs some medicines maybe a cataract surgery but she is a little short of cash. I don’t want my grandmother to suffer. Now, lets say you are walking down the street and I whip out my 22 stub nose and demand all the money you got or I’ll kill you. I also tell you, because I want you to feel good about this, you are doing your Christian duty and need to be happy about my robbing you. I want you to be happy knowing your money will go to pay for grannies meds and surgery with 60% going to me for the cost of my bullets, gun and other overhead expenses.

Your test question…ready… am I doing God’s work, a great act of charity or am I an armed robber?

You’d better get more than a .22!