Private option?

flaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
282
Have the Democrats even bothered to consider ways to energize private philanthropy for healthcare? Could we take steps to empower churches to take up healthcare and other of the government’s social welfare functions? Or have we reached the point where we should no longer expect churches to care about taking care of the nation’s poor and downtrodden considering the Left’s systematic effort over the past 60 years to marginalize and destroy the nation’s churches?
 
Werbung:
Have the Democrats even bothered to consider ways to energize private philanthropy for healthcare? Could we take steps to empower churches to take up healthcare and other of the government’s social welfare functions? Or have we reached the point where we should no longer expect churches to care about taking care of the nation’s poor and downtrodden considering the Left’s systematic effort over the past 60 years to marginalize and destroy the nation’s churches?


I remember when at least 1/2 the hospitals and clinics were run my one faith or another. Government restrictions have slowly put them out of business in most communities.
 
I remember when at least 1/2 the hospitals and clinics were run my one faith or another. Government restrictions have slowly put them out of business in most communities.

We used to have at least 8 different hospitals here, but there have been so many mergers and closures that we are down to just 5. The hospital I was born in likely had a church-affiliation since it was named St. Luke’s, but it merged about 20 years ago with a secular hospital. The local Methodist hospital simply went out of business so my metropolitan area of a million-plus people has only 2 church-affiliated hospitals out of 5 hospitals we still have.
 
We used to have at least 8 different hospitals here, but there have been so many mergers and closures that we are down to just 5. The hospital I was born in likely had a church-affiliation since it was named St. Luke’s, but it merged about 20 years ago with a secular hospital. The local Methodist hospital simply went out of business so my metropolitan area of a million-plus people has only 2 church-affiliated hospitals out of 5 hospitals we still have.

I think that this points out a larger problem in our society and political system. We've lost the ability to work collaboratively. Everything either has to be one way or the other. We need to be more tolerant and cooperative in solving problems, instead of everyone worrying about being right.
 
Have the Democrats even bothered to consider ways to energize private philanthropy for healthcare? Could we take steps to empower churches to take up healthcare and other of the government’s social welfare functions? Or have we reached the point where we should no longer expect churches to care about taking care of the nation’s poor and downtrodden considering the Left’s systematic effort over the past 60 years to marginalize and destroy the nation’s churches?



how would such an idea expand government ?

:rolleyes:
 
I think that this points out a larger problem in our society and political system. We've lost the ability to work collaboratively. Everything either has to be one way or the other. We need to be more tolerant and cooperative in solving problems, instead of everyone worrying about being right.

We didn’t used to have career politicians and this is probably the main reason our opposing factions have become so hostile to each other; we have too many people trying to protect government offices that they believe are theirs by right. We need fundamental reforms in this country- and likely a completely new constitution- but such things are beyond our ability due to our partisan nature.
 
I think that this points out a larger problem in our society and political system. We've lost the ability to work collaboratively. Everything either has to be one way or the other. We need to be more tolerant and cooperative in solving problems, instead of everyone worrying about being right.


they do not seek to solve problems. they buy votes and enrich their cronies (and therefore themselves).
 
Why would empowering the private sector mean an expansion of government?


note the rolling eyes.

the purpose of this health insurance reform is to expand the federal government pure and simple.

I prefer the back to the future approach you outline.

I prefer a return to local and personal charity as opposed to the forced charity at the point of a gun we enjoy now.
 
Have the Democrats even bothered to consider ways to energize private philanthropy for healthcare? Could we take steps to empower churches to take up healthcare and other of the government’s social welfare functions? Or have we reached the point where we should no longer expect churches to care about taking care of the nation’s poor and downtrodden considering the Left’s systematic effort over the past 60 years to marginalize and destroy the nation’s churches?

We've already had that... that's old common history. The church's simply could not do it anymore. Not even close... not even 5% of the national need could church's provided today.

The population got way to large and too spread out. That's EXACTLY why the government had to step in.

And when you think about it. You shouldn't want poor people to have to go begging to a church for help. A church that they may not even believe in but in some cases were forced to participate in to get assistance. And then there's church corruption (read the Jim & Tammy Fay Baker) and even things like the the pedophile priest scandals.

I think it's a great Christmas gift to the American people that their government showed it cares on this Christmas eve by passing Health Insurance Reform in the US Senate.


 
We've already had that... that's old common history. The church's simply could not do it anymore. Not even close... not even 5% of the national need could church's provided today.

The population got way to large and too spread out. That's EXACTLY why the government had to step in.

And when you think about it. You shouldn't want poor people to have to go begging to a church for help. A church that they may not even believe in but in some cases were forced to participate in to get assistance. And then there's church corruption (read the Jim & Tammy Fay Baker) and even things like the the pedophile priest scandals.

I think it's a great Christmas gift to the American people that their government showed it cares on this Christmas eve by passing Health Insurance Reform in the US Senate.





and why did it become difficult ?

because the costs began to spirial up.

and why ?

becuase the government forced insurance upon us by implementing wage controls and then decided to get into the medical biz itself. when people ceased to have visibility and responsibility then costs began to rise.

but even with that and as late as the 80's charity and the medical biz accomodated indigent care.

then came the illegals (yet another failure of government).

its a complex problem but the root causes of it are all government related.

oh, and lest you delude yourself into think the government will be giving anyone anything, remember that (apart from the fiat money they are just printing now) anything they "give" was first taken from someone else at the point of a gun.
 
note the rolling eyes.

the purpose of this health insurance reform is to expand the federal government pure and simple.

I prefer the back to the future approach you outline.

I prefer a return to local and personal charity as opposed to the forced charity at the point of a gun we enjoy now.

What would you do if state and local governments and private charity prove unequal to the task? Would you see people die waiting for help from the private sector because you are afraid of big bad government?

I am not saying that any government plan will work. But neither am I saying that the healthcare industry does not need reform. And I am saying that I don’t trust the private sector to make the necessary reforms without the government’s input.
 
We've already had that... that's old common history. The church's simply could not do it anymore. Not even close... not even 5% of the national need could church's provided today.


How are you calculating what the country's social welfare need is, and how are you calculating our churches' ability to fulfill this need?

The population got way to large and too spread out. That's EXACTLY why the government had to step in.

Geographically speaking the U.S. population has pretty much always been spread out. This excuse doesn’t hold water.

And when you think about it. You shouldn't want poor people to have to go begging to a church for help. A church that they may not even believe in but in some cases were forced to participate in to get assistance.

Thus you are missing the point. Society cannot deal with all of its social problems because society itself has created and perpetuated many of these social problems. Liberals don’t want churches to get involved because 1. they want people to be dependent on the government and 2. they don’t want spiritual options to be available because liberals (and their libertarian allies) are innately hostile to the stabilizing force that religion can provide for society.

And then there's church corruption (read the Jim & Tammy Fay Baker) and even things like the the pedophile priest scandals.

As opposed to what- Social Security, AFCD, Food Stamps etcetera, etcetera ad nauseum

I think it's a great Christmas gift to the American people that their government showed it cares on this Christmas eve by passing Health Insurance Reform in the US Senate.

But it is not law yet. The House will have to debate what the Senate has approved and then both House and Senate will have to iron out their differences before any final vote can be taken- and next year is an election year.
 
What would you do if state and local governments and private charity prove unequal to the task? Would you see people die waiting for help from the private sector because you are afraid of big bad government?

I am not saying that any government plan will work. But neither am I saying that the healthcare industry does not need reform. And I am saying that I don’t trust the private sector to make the necessary reforms without the government’s input.


I suspect I'd see people take more responsibility to manage their own health if they knew that there was no sugar daddy to bail them out.

I suspect I'd see people taking an active role and not "die waiting".

I watched my Canadian friend "die waiting" for her government healthcare to get around to permitting the catscan required to verify the aggressive brain tumor she had which allowed it to become inoperable.

The government has created this mess, there is no way it can be trusted to fix it.
 
Werbung:
I suspect I'd see people take more responsibility to manage their own health if they knew that there was no sugar daddy to bail them out.

And what happens when they cannot afford to look after themselves? My mother’s last job before lupus forced her into medical retirement and on to SSI disability and Medicare was as the comptroller for a local private country club. She personally knows some of the richest men in town and she knows several who were diagnosed with un-treatable cancers by local doctors and were literally told to go home and wait to die. But because these men had the financial wherewithal to travel the world in search of cancer treatments that are not locally available their cancers were cured.
 
Back
Top