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

[stevegravy]

Very few? What number going without is acceptable to you?

Don’t even go there it is impossible to get 100% of anything. Unless you have infinite resources

The US healthcare costs are what they are because people can’t pay their bill, so we all are paying through the nose to make it up to the healthcare industry.

You need to know that the cost of health care in the US is so ridiculous compared to actual services rendered for a whole lot of reasons besides the uninsured use of the ER. You can start with the over use of diagnostic testing because of the need to protect from malpractice suits. Lack of tort reform is probably the single biggest cause of excessive testing and rendering services that aren’t necessary (example drug seekers on a Friday night in a ER) Government regulations like the one forcing hospitals to purchase supplies only from certified distributers. And on and on.

The Vatican secretary of state made his comments when he delivered the Pope’s message. I feel they are on the same page. At least no one has produced any correction from the Pope.

Still wrong government are deplorable at delivering services unless it is taking out a country overnight. Well up until BO and his 3-day Libyan operation but it’s typical of government these days.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Wrong on all counts because, as I pointed out, you are assuming.

When you say “It seems to say” you are assuming. It’s obvious.

It’s like discussing Catholicism with some Protestants. They say ‘you do this’, we say ‘no, this is what we do’.

I am not assuming, I am stating what is obvious to me from the communications, limited as it is through this type fora.

There are times I wonder, especially when direct questions are ‘overlooked’ repeatedly. When I say ‘it seems to say’ that’s what it is, it is not a qualification of knowing.

You have clearly stated you don’t want the government using your money, through taxes, to provide services for anyone else. You have not provided what you think a solution would be so that those in need could receive, specifically healthcare since that’s the topic of this discussion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Don’t even go there it is impossible to get 100% of anything. Unless you have infinite resources

Then what do we place a threshold on, whether or not people can pay or not?

You need to know that the cost of health care in the US is so ridiculous compared to actual services rendered for a whole lot of reasons besides the uninsured use of the ER. You can start with the over use of diagnostic testing because of the need to protect from malpractice suits. Lack of tort reform is probably the single biggest cause of excessive testing and rendering services that aren’t necessary (example drug seekers on a Friday night in a ER) Government regulations like the one forcing hospitals to purchase supplies only from certified distributers. And on and on.

I understand this quite well. I work on an ambulance and in an ER at times.

Still wrong government are deplorable at delivering services unless it is taking out a country overnight. Well up until BO and his 3-day Libyan operation but it’s typical of government these days.

So what is your solution to the healthcare situation? The rest of your comment clouds the issue being discussed. The problem has existed for many more years than under the present administration.

 

[m8g8]

But isn’t the point of taxes to help the country? To improve roads, fund schools and support the jobless? I see nothing wrong with them going towards helping the sick as well. I prefer the socialist approach to the capitalist.

 

[SamH]

My primary interest is seeing our money, through taxes, go to those in need. Others seem to have an interest of protecting their own money and unwillingness to share.

No, others are have a primary interest in making sure their money goes to those in true need.

How many homeless people do you share your home with?

 

[Warrior1979]

The government has the greatest outreach to reach the majority of people.

So?

They have proven repeatedly that they are utterly incompetent at dealing with the situation. The latest round, Obamacare, simply increased costs on those paying with no added benefit in terms of medical treatment.

 

[iamrefreshed]

It’s like discussing Catholicism with some Protestants. They say ‘you do this’, we say ‘no, this is what we do’.

I am not assuming, I am stating what is obvious to me from the communications, limited as it is through this type fora.

There are times I wonder, especially when direct questions are ‘overlooked’ repeatedly. When I say ‘it seems to say’ that’s what it is, it is not a qualification of knowing.

You have clearly stated you don’t want the government using your money, through taxes, to provide services for anyone else. You have not provided what you think a solution would be so that those in need could receive, specifically healthcare since that’s the topic of this discussion.

You are saying that those who don’t want the government to be in the charity business are greedy money hoarders. That’s what I read (in this limited type of fora).

We don’t need healthcare reform. Everyone in America has access to healthcare.

 

[stevegravy]

In a democracy,

One last time, we are not a democracy we are a representative republic.

we can be charitable by voting for, and supporting, social programs to assist the needy. We can do that freely, or we can argue against it.

The only thing charitable is your vote that is the only thing given. You can give money away to whomever you want but the government is coercion that is their only power. Power is by the way what the bureaucrats want and they want it ever increasing which is why they use smug pollution to extract it. (We have to do it for the chhhhildddren….poooooor,__________ fill in the blank.

It’s not ‘new speak’, it’s been in place in our country for decades.

Longevity doesn’t mean it isn’t new speak. ( you know 1984, War is Peace, et cetera) Taxes are coerced charity is freely given.

If what you’re saying is true, we must separate ourselves from the secular, even on matters as important as abortion. We have amalgamated our spiritual with secular in this country. I try to view the entire through the spiritual eye, or else I risk into falling into too much of the secular to be able to see the spiritual correctly. That’s my view of it, plain and simple.

This I agree with you which is why I argue lets do charity work through our Catholic institutions. Let the government do what it does best kill its enemies.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But isn’t the point of taxes to help the country? To improve roads, fund schools and support the jobless? I see nothing wrong with them going towards helping the sick as well. I prefer the socialist approach to the capitalist.

Like when the early Church sold what they had and dispensed according to each person’s needs?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, others are have a primary interest in making sure their money goes to those in true need.

How many homeless people do you share your home with?

Glad you recognize the problem, now please give the example of how many homeless you share your home with so I feel compelled to answer.

The leader of our Church called on governments, but the laypersons have a better way?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Like when the early Church sold what they had and dispensed according to each person’s needs?

So when is the Vatican closing the museums and selling everything?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So?

They have proven repeatedly that they are utterly incompetent at dealing with the situation. The latest round, Obamacare, simply increased costs on those paying with no added benefit in terms of medical treatment.

And we have the other side of the aisle arguing against closing tax loopholes and subsidies on the rich because it would be considered ‘raising taxes’?

What is your solution? Do we just give up and offer no one healthcare unless they can afford it?

 

[SamH]

Glad you recognize the problem, now please give the example of how many homeless you share your home with so I feel compelled to answer. ?

I share my home with two orphan children that have been abandoned by their parents and the government. So how many homeless do you share your home with?

Perhaps your example will inspire me to do more.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So when is the Vatican closing the museums and selling everything?

So I am not assuming anything, please clarify do you think the Vatican is wrong? Is the Pope wrong to call on governments to prioritize healthcare for everyone?

 

[iamrefreshed]

So I am not assuming anything, please clarify do you think the Vatican is wrong? Is the Pope wrong to call on governments to prioritize healthcare for everyone?

Why do you always answer questions with more questions?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I share my home with two orphan children that have been abandoned by their parents and the government. So how many homeless do you share your home with?

Perhaps your example will inspire me to do more.

My wife and I live alone, but we live in a rural area where there is no evidence of homeless. When we see someone in that desperate need, we find them help and have given of our own to help them out.

Now, how do we reach the majority in this country? I don’t know about your house, but ours is small and modest.

 

[SamH]

Why do you always answer questions with more questions?

That’s what you do when you have no answers.

 

[stevegravy]

But isn’t the point of taxes to help the country? To improve roads, fund schools and support the jobless? I see nothing wrong with them going towards helping the sick as well. I prefer the socialist approach to the capitalist.

It is only my opinion but taxes are to support the government. It takes your money so it can do what it wants to do. Now social services on the surface are a good thing right. Well how about me robbing you so my granny can have an operation is that a good thing? This is the point of contention, what are the competencies of the government and is it more prudent to have charity be handled by non-government agencies that are self-funded through their donors? Those arguing for government are concerned private charities would be incapable of raising enough money, while those arguing for private charities believe government is so wasteful and so prone to abuse it will be a bottomless money pit. In the end it requires all of our earning or we will be left with a utilitarian system where rationing is based on your usefulness to society.

from your earlier post.
However, with the free healthcare, and the generous amount of benefits and council houses, people leech off the system and the NHS can’t cope. People come here to receive treatment, recover, then fly back. Not that anything can be done about it, because of the EU…

Which is why we need to be very careful of any system we design that acts like a social outreach that we don’t destroy the people we are supposed to be helping which is why private charity can be soooo much better then big brother.

 

[SamH]

My wife and I live alone, but we live in a rural area where there is no evidence of homeless. :

I live in a rural area too and the homeless children came from a city far away.

It seems strange that you can find no charitable outlet for your need to give - could it be lack of effort?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why do you always answer questions with more questions?

You love the sarcastic emoticon, or so it seems. Maybe it’s just being sarcastic in a discussion. I’m not sure only you know that.

What makes you assume that I would know the plans on whether or not the Vatican intends on selling anything in it’s possession? Oh, sorry another question.

Come on, we know definitely the Pope has called on governments on the issue of universal healthcare. Is he wrong for doing that? Is it not an example for Catholics to follow?

If this is how the discussion is to continue, I will not be responding to your posts. I am discussing realities and not ‘what ifs’. I think I’ve more than explained my view, even against the ‘spins’ and avoidance of direct questions I’ve asked.