My recent experience of the UK National Health Service (long post)

CaptainHaplo · 10-20-09, 08:30 PM

Skybird.....

Your right that there is a paradox. However, as a man of the cloth, perhaps I can address it.

There is a big difference between a "universal" right to something, and the spiritual gift of compassion. Health care is not a RIGHT, it is a service provided by people who work hard. If it was a RIGHT, then those trained to provide it would have the DUTY to provide it, with or without compensation.

Ultimately, that leads to more demand than its worth to those skilled, and thus a shortage of the needed people. How many medical folks do you think you will have once you start demanding their skills for nothing? Granted - that is an extreme - but its used to illustrate a point.

Compassion on the other hand, is not a responsibility either. Spiritually speaking, it is a character trait to strive for. However, compassion, like patience and other positive things, has its limits. To be compassionate does not mean to turn a blind eye and give the shirt off your back without thought. It doesn't mean to look to "protect everyone". It means to look at those who are suffering and desire a way to try and help. However, in almost every biblical illustration of compassion, it is bestowed upon those in need who are in need due to no or limited fault of their own.

It means look at the children who are hungry or sick and get some people to help provide what they need, by choice. It means look at the man or woman beaten in the street, robbed or worse, and go aid them.

It doesn't mean look at those who choose to harm themselves or others, and provide them "blanket protection". It doesn't mean to see those who refuse to help themselves, and do it for them, or enable them to continue.

Now, before someone rants about being "judgemental" (and that always comes up like its some baseball bat they can hit a christian over the head with), there is a difference between judging a person, and discerning whether your compassion will be wasted. The spiritual gift of compassion is not to be given lightly, and is an individual choice.

I was asked once by a very liberal supporter of universal health care, after they mocked faith and people of faith, "well what would your precious Jesus do?". Thinking he had me in a bind, the fool laughed as if a victory was won. The answer was simple. Jesus would create a perfect remedy. However, we are humans, and we can do no such thing. Thus we must discern where our abilities can best be used to support those who need it. This is why compassion is not a global possibility. We are not the Son of God, we are not perfect, and no system we create ever will be. However, to waste what we can do on those who will choose to take that compassion and throw it away, is to ignore the teachings of Jesus. Mercy and compassion are not catch alls, no more than the blood of Jesus is a credit card to swipe after a sin for forgiveness.

Sea Demon · 10-20-09, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I was asked once by a very liberal supporter of universal health care, after they mocked faith and people of faith, "well what would your precious Jesus do?".

You make good points Haplo. Do you know how many liberals I've talked to with this line of reasoning? It is a very weak argument as Christianity is a matter of the individuals soul, not state politics or systems of government. It is not moral to vote away people's property, to the detriment of individual freedom. A liberal often sees the words "free healthcare", and licks his chops over the prospect of turning away yet another personal responsibility to the care of somebody else. Paid for by others through force of government. Liberals don't understand how truly unChristian this is. People should help others. Yet, they should not empower a government to redistribute by force an unwilling people's property.

CaptainHaplo · 10-20-09, 09:31 PM

Sea Demon,

Thanks. I do think liberals look at it as "why can't we do for everyone" and think its not so much about lacking personal responsibility, but instead see it as a noble goal. It is. But nobility does not equate to practicality. Liberals often miss how many would abuse a system instead of using it as needed. They see the forest - but they can't see which trees are rotted on the inside. They think "forest management" without considering each sapling, shrub, blade of grass or weed.

There is nothing wrong with a noble purpose, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Intentions are ideas. They sound good alot more often than they actually work.

They also fail to realize that government paying for things costs someone else. Its just like the promise of the US President. He said that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under a certain amount. Unfortunately, that isn't possible if your going to deliver more than what can be bought with what you have.

Lastly, they do not comprehend that others can disagree with their noble ideals without being petty, selfish, racist, or whatever the term of the day is.

Regarding your stance on christianity and its directives regarding government, the bible teaches respect for authority, be it government, church, or elders. However, Jesus himself worked within the system of government that existed at the time to promote change.

Slavery is one of those that gets brought up alot to me, because many think Jesus tacitly condoned it. However, remember that Jesus stated he was not here to "destroy" (or change) the world, he was here to save it. A follower of jesus who sat at his feet would not keep slaves. But he was not here to take the throne and correct all injustice. Just as Jesus did to work within the system to bring about change, so do many who are against universal health care, making their voices heard but doing no violence.

Sea Demon · 10-20-09, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Thanks. I do think liberals look at it as "why can't we do for everyone" and think its not so much about lacking personal responsibility, but instead see it as a noble goal. It is. But nobility does not equate to practicality.

Yes, Haplo. I don't disagree with your thoughts. In terms of people seeing this process as a "noble goal"...you speak of the classic "do-gooder" liberal. In my opinion, these people simply want to feel good about themselves. And they feel they can do this by micro-managing other people's lives, and being generous with other people's property. Sometimes I'm not sure if they actually want to help anybody, as they never seem to care about the poor results that often happens when their "vision" is implemented. Nor do they give a hoot for personal freedom or personal choice. They just feel they know what's best for everyone. And they are flat clueless. They couldn't actually know what the needs of each individual is. Also, these people never put accountability on those on the receiving end of their so called "generosity". I guess that's easy, since they're voting away the property of total strangers.

But the other side of the coin Haplo is the liberal who talks a big game, but is simply interested in alleviating their own personal responsibility. They simply want others to pay for part of their existence. Hell, they feel owed and entitled. These types do exist. And unfortunately, the "do-gooder" has a symbiotic relationship with these types. They feed off eachother. And it has proven to be economically ruinous to this nation.

In terms of Christianity, it was never the intention of Christ to make people dependant on the vices of any government. And as you said, he wasn't here to assume the throne and cure all injustices. Christ was concerned for the soul of mankind. And man's free choice to serve his fellow man. The soul cannot do this by force of any government. Christ is greater than the state. Therefore, empowering government at the expense of personal liberty simply corrupts this vision IMO. "Assisting" others with other people's stuff at the voting booth is not generosity. In the end, I don't begrudge the TRULY poor from seeking assistance. Yet, there has to be an end to the ambitions of the so called "do-gooders". The deficit generating (bloated/government run) healthcare ambition in this country breaks the limit. And if there are no limits, than we have no freedom at all. Nor do we have individual liberty or freedom of choice. This is called tyranny from where I come from.

AVGWarhawk · 10-21-09, 08:33 AM

I'm not sure this is a Christian, Liberal or Conservative argument at all. The argument rests on anyone enjoying the health care needs to be an active contributor to the system. The problem is no matter how many fines imposed there will always be the individual who does not contribute that receives the care anyway. We are still in the same boat then. The plan will not work. The only change we will see is government calling the shots. To me, another government intrusion.

AVGWarhawk · 10-21-09, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Top Senate Democrats intend to try to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws, according to congressional officials, the latest evidence of a deepening struggle over President Barack Obama's effort to overhaul the health care industry.
If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor.

Welcome to the force feeding....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091021/D9BFEN3G0.html

10-21-09, 11:19 AM

I guess the privatization side of the health care debate does rely on stuff like Jesus and miracles.

Shearwater · 10-21-09, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

In terms of Christianity, it was never the intention of Christ to make people dependant on the vices of any government. And as you said, he wasn't here to assume the throne and cure all injustices. Christ was concerned for the soul of mankind. And man's free choice to serve his fellow man. The soul cannot do this by force of any government. Christ is greater than the state. Therefore, empowering government at the expense of personal liberty simply corrupts this vision IMO. "Assisting" others with other people's stuff at the voting booth is not generosity. In the end, I don't begrudge the TRULY poor from seeking assistance. Yet, there has to be an end to the ambitions of the so called "do-gooders". The deficit generating (bloated/government run) healthcare ambition in this country breaks the limit. And if there are no limits, than we have no freedom at all. Nor do we have individual liberty or freedom of choice. This is called tyranny from where I come from.

Here's my 0.02$:
First of all, I think that religion should be kept out of politics, and that people who drag it into politics (sorry for my wording, I'm really not getting at you) must stomach the fact that not everyone shares their interpretation. In any case, being a staunch agnostic myself, I can only conjecture what the viewpoint is that you were critically referring to in your post.

In general, I think that the Christian religion is, as a whole, much too fundamental (and basically not actually concered with matters of 'this' world) to allow for any ready made answers in political issues such as these. Also, I am firmly convinced that there is no simple interpretation of Christianity. Of course, faith is always a personal choice. But living within a society, or at least a community, is part of the human condition. I can see why some people can argue that general healthcare can in fact be some a form of Charity (in the Christian theological sense). I just think that that while a persons's faith is an individual choice, Christianity can very well have a social dimension.

Hope that didn't sound offensive - as I've said, it's only a hypothesis.

10-20-09, 08:30 PM	#1
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Skybird..... Your right that there is a paradox. However, as a man of the cloth, perhaps I can address it. There is a big difference between a "universal" right to something, and the spiritual gift of compassion. Health care is not a RIGHT, it is a service provided by people who work hard. If it was a RIGHT, then those trained to provide it would have the DUTY to provide it, with or without compensation. Ultimately, that leads to more demand than its worth to those skilled, and thus a shortage of the needed people. How many medical folks do you think you will have once you start demanding their skills for nothing? Granted - that is an extreme - but its used to illustrate a point. Compassion on the other hand, is not a responsibility either. Spiritually speaking, it is a character trait to strive for. However, compassion, like patience and other positive things, has its limits. To be compassionate does not mean to turn a blind eye and give the shirt off your back without thought. It doesn't mean to look to "protect everyone". It means to look at those who are suffering and desire a way to try and help. However, in almost every biblical illustration of compassion, it is bestowed upon those in need who are in need due to no or limited fault of their own. It means look at the children who are hungry or sick and get some people to help provide what they need, by choice. It means look at the man or woman beaten in the street, robbed or worse, and go aid them. It doesn't mean look at those who choose to harm themselves or others, and provide them "blanket protection". It doesn't mean to see those who refuse to help themselves, and do it for them, or enable them to continue. Now, before someone rants about being "judgemental" (and that always comes up like its some baseball bat they can hit a christian over the head with), there is a difference between judging a person, and discerning whether your compassion will be wasted. The spiritual gift of compassion is not to be given lightly, and is an individual choice. I was asked once by a very liberal supporter of universal health care, after they mocked faith and people of faith, "well what would your precious Jesus do?". Thinking he had me in a bind, the fool laughed as if a victory was won. The answer was simple. Jesus would create a perfect remedy. However, we are humans, and we can do no such thing. Thus we must discern where our abilities can best be used to support those who need it. This is why compassion is not a global possibility. We are not the Son of God, we are not perfect, and no system we create ever will be. However, to waste what we can do on those who will choose to take that compassion and throw it away, is to ignore the teachings of Jesus. Mercy and compassion are not catch alls, no more than the blood of Jesus is a credit card to swipe after a sin for forgiveness. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

10-20-09, 09:31 PM	#3
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Sea Demon, Thanks. I do think liberals look at it as "why can't we do for everyone" and think its not so much about lacking personal responsibility, but instead see it as a noble goal. It is. But nobility does not equate to practicality. Liberals often miss how many would abuse a system instead of using it as needed. They see the forest - but they can't see which trees are rotted on the inside. They think "forest management" without considering each sapling, shrub, blade of grass or weed. There is nothing wrong with a noble purpose, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Intentions are ideas. They sound good alot more often than they actually work. They also fail to realize that government paying for things costs someone else. Its just like the promise of the US President. He said that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under a certain amount. Unfortunately, that isn't possible if your going to deliver more than what can be bought with what you have. Lastly, they do not comprehend that others can disagree with their noble ideals without being petty, selfish, racist, or whatever the term of the day is. Regarding your stance on christianity and its directives regarding government, the bible teaches respect for authority, be it government, church, or elders. However, Jesus himself worked within the system of government that existed at the time to promote change. Slavery is one of those that gets brought up alot to me, because many think Jesus tacitly condoned it. However, remember that Jesus stated he was not here to "destroy" (or change) the world, he was here to save it. A follower of jesus who sat at his feet would not keep slaves. But he was not here to take the throne and correct all injustice. Just as Jesus did to work within the system to bring about change, so do many who are against universal health care, making their voices heard but doing no violence. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

10-21-09, 08:33 AM	#5
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,281 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	I'm not sure this is a Christian, Liberal or Conservative argument at all. The argument rests on anyone enjoying the health care needs to be an active contributor to the system. The problem is no matter how many fines imposed there will always be the individual who does not contribute that receives the care anyway. We are still in the same boat then. The plan will not work. The only change we will see is government calling the shots. To me, another government intrusion. __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-21-09, 11:19 AM	#7
OneToughHerring Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	I guess the privatization side of the health care debate does rely on stuff like Jesus and miracles.