In the UK, while it was a left-wing Labour government in power when the NHS was founded, it was actually a right-wing Conservative party who proposed it first.
The United States is not a democracy, but a republic with democratic features, always with controls in place to prevent mob rule. I am sorry that you believe that every government is the same. Do you include Communist China and North Korea in that assessment? Do you blame the United States for WWII? Or Viet Nam?
He didn’t say they were all the same, but that none and inherently good or bad. I agree with that, I’m not sure the USA government can call themselves morally good any more than China’s government can.
You see, we don’t have the precept, “Mustn’t grumble” here. We have the right to petition our government at any point in the process, whether we voted our representatives into office or not. Even the citizens who did vote for the current representatives have the right to change their minds and to press their representatives for better representation.
He didn’t say they were all the same, but that none and inherently good or bad. I agree with that, I’m not sure the USA government can call themselves morally good any more than China’s government can.
I’m not sure of the relevance of the mention of WWII or Vietnam, can you explain?
And the USA has never commited evils or atrocities itself? That was my point. USA cannot pretend to be morally good any more than China can. Good point about what China has done to its citizens, but I think you’re going overboard and didn’t understand what I was trying to say.
Are you KIDDING me? When no one is free to worship God in a church in China? You think that is morally the same as the United States? You are an animal lover, correct? Did you know that millions of family pets were killed in front of their owners a couple of years ago, because of a supposed outbreak of rabies? These were animals, mostly dogs, who had never been outside of their homes except for short walks. The government decided and that is what happened. Personally, I think it was to send a message to the citizens, " we can do this to your animals and we can do this to you."
Do you know anything about Tienanmen Square? We will never know how many people actually lost their lives during that time, but it’s many more than the Chinese government will ever admit to.
I cannot believe that you actually think Communist China, where a one-child policy is strictly enforced through FORCED ABORTION, is morally equal to America. My Dear Lord.
Very very wrong. Consider North Korea. That is one man, a very evil one, in charge of an entire country of starving people. That’s not evil? And you actually put “better” in quotes?
Neither do we here, thank you very much. You missed my point and assumed it was an extreme. You voted a government in to make decisions. If you don’t like those decisions, then complain. But don’t complain on the basis that they’re making those decisions, regardless of what they are, when you voted them in! There is a difference between complaining about someone introducing a reform you don’t like, and complaining about someone making that decision in itself “they have no right” well, sadly, they did.
See, again, you’re using the words “take” and “force”. You voted this government into being. It’s like saying that my boss “takes” my hours of work from me, and “forces” me to turn up at work every day, and then “imposes” his money on me.
Good point at the end, I completely agree with that. One of the most smartest things I’ve heard in a while (if you’ll forgive my clumsy compliment) however, let’s use healthcare as an example. One of the reasons Americans object to nationalised healthcare is the belief that its socialist as the government would effectively be introducing another tax, yes? Well, over here, we’re not paranoid about our governments (I can’t think of another word to describe it). I’ve had it said to me by an American friend offline that even if it was cheaper for her to pay a tax instead of a private insurance (and would get more for her money) she’d be against us, because it’s the government. I find that really bizarre.
Again, you’re talking about people here. Maybe I’m not explaining myself properly. I’m talking about intrincic good or evil. For example - a democratic government cannot be intrinsically good or evil, any more than a socialist government can. Hitler was elected using a democratic system. So, does that mean that democracy is always evil? No it doesn’t. Obama was elected using a democratic system also. Does that mean that democracy is always good?Very very wrong. Consider North Korea. That is one man, a very evil one, in charge of an entire country of starving people. That’s not evil? And you actually put “better” in quotes?
The US had Kent State. The US government engages in secrecy to protect misdeeds it does. The US is engaged in two wars at the moment, neither supported by Just War, resulting in the killing of hundreds of thousands of people. The US engaged in eugenics. The US engaged in human medical experiments which involved offering free government health care to Blacks infected with syphilis. The ‘patients’ were never informed of their disease or treated for it because the experiment was to learn more about untreated syphilis. I could name lots of other evil acts.
When the birth rate falls, the population ages, resulting in an increasingly higher percentage of older people–and those are the ones who use the most healthcare services. What you end up with is a declining population of taxpaying workers and an increasing population of retirees. That’s exactly why Medicare and Social Security in the U.S. is running into sustainability problems. The same would be true of a national healthcare system or any national system of benefits.JimG - if the population of the UK declined and there were less taxpayers, then there would be less patients, less spending, so no it will not go suddenly bankrupt or short of staff. Think about it, supply and demand.
Then you employ people from overseas. The NHS attracts doctors and nurses from all over the world. Does your government allow hospitals to become short-staffed and doesn’t employ immigrants?
It’s not a matter of using immigration for a supply of docs. You will also need immigration for a supply of taxpayers. And yes, that’s the only alternative to growing the population naturally. That’s why I support increased immigration in the U.S. Despite the current anti-immigration fervor, it is good for the economy. Keep in mind, though, that high tax rates will tend to decrease willingness to immigrate to particular countries.
Doctors pay taxes
.Of course doctors pay taxes. And they are paid their salary from taxes. Unless you are simply counting on healthcare workers to pay each other, you are also going to need sufficient other taxpayers to support the system as a whole. The greater the number of people who are being paid from taxes, the greater the population base that is needed to support the system.Doctors pay taxes
Several years ago we had a massive amount of nurses move here from the Phillipines. At the hospital I work at, at least one qualified nurse is Fillipino on every hospital ward I’ve been on. They’re hard working, pay their taxes, and most of them are Catholic and go to my parish Church.
I won’t dispute there would be mass emigration. But I would say that has more to do with economics than politics. The two are very intertwined and I think the old term ‘political economy’ used to describe economics makes that more clear. It is true that a command and control economy will grow poorer. But I dont think it is true that a democracy will always be free market or that a non-democracy will always not be.
When it comes to Communist countries economics and politics are intrinsically related, and always to the detriment of the population. The world has had massive proof of that, with North Korea being the latest attempt at the purest form of command and control economics. But I like Henry Hazlit’s analysis of economics in his book Economis in One Lesson.
That is true of any country. 99% of the political talk in the US is about economics. And this makes sense as any mature government has already taken care of the most basic purposes of the government. In the US the Common Law inheritance from England provides for most of the laws dealing with crime.
I doubt the truth of this statement. It is one thing to say that everyone should have a right to health care but quite another thing to say that one person has an obligation to provide it for someone else. The Church has never made that claim, nor is that what is meant by the command to “heal the sick.” The decision about how to best provide health care is entirely prudential and there is no moral mandate to enact any specific form of national medical support. On the other hand, “national health care” is such a broad and ambiguous term that it could mean almost anything, including the form of health care we have today.