Priorities Money or people?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
Moses
captain of 100
Posts: 316
Location: New Zealand

Priorities Money or people?

Post by Moses »

Last night my dear 90 year old mother, fell and has broken her hip. I was at the hospital with her till the early hours of the morning.
At the hospital were many people who had had varying misadventures.

I got to thinking while I was driving home. on balance, I am glad I live in system where we have free emergency healthcare.

The argument that tax ought not be used for helping the sick, poor, unfortunate. is somehow is stealing. I thought a while and came to the conclusion, that this is a very harsh interpretation. I always feel that people must come before financial considerations. And I feel there is something wrong with a community that puts the interpretation that tax for the poor is theft.

My dear old mum will have a new hip that she could not afford without the help of free healthcare.

I would be happy if we were charged and had interest free time payments and the costs kept to only actual cost and no exhorbitent fees from surgeons.

I find it hard to accept that for an operation , one can be in debt for many years or lose ones home house to pay for medical bills. How can three hours work by a surgeon be worth a persons home? its unthinkable to me.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by shadow »

Sorry to hear about your grandma. I hope she heals quickly.

And I agree, value is found in people, not money or things. That being said, how is free healthcare free? Think about it. It really isn't free at all. A bill had to be paid by someone. So the question to ask when anything is given to you is "At who's expense?" If not yours then who's? And did that person willingly give it or was it taken without permission or by force or deception? So what that it helped someone, it also hurt someone, the one it was taken from.

If all in a society willingly agree to pay a tax, then it becomes more of a donation, and that's good. That follows God's plan, the plan we all agreed to before we came to this earth. 1/3 chose the forcefull way, a way that never could work.

User avatar
Moses
captain of 100
Posts: 316
Location: New Zealand

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by Moses »

Yes, however.....how can we bury someone in the earth who could be saved, but dont because of money, and then sleep at night?

The simple answer is Agree to be taxed, dont begrudge the money. Its only in the minds of those who's money is so vitally important. To me its a no brainer. no theft, no wrong, simply human duty to one another.

You cant steal from yourself. The tax taken is given back in treatment and benefits to those who need them. Theft is only theft if there if there is an intention to permanently deprive someone of something. The fund is for all who need it. So no theft has occured, I repeat, How can you steal from yourself?

Tax payer pays tax .... Taxpayer receives help when needed. = No theft.

To you it is theft as you see it that way, to me its not theft as I dont see it that way.

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by ChelC »

It's theft when the majority take from the minority. If all but one vote for something, and it's taken forcibly from the one, then we are stealing from that one. To me it's crystal clear.

Yes, people are far more valuable than money. I agree - how can we let people die when we have the means to help them? Government is simply inefficient and involuntary. Those are the main flaws. There is sooo much waste and overhead in government. Help functions better on a local level, and is only moral on a voluntary level. To me it's arrogant to say "I would help someone, but others would let them go hungry - so I'd better force them to do the right thing." I believe most people are good, and most people would help others. I always encounter at least several nice and decent people to every twit.

It is our responsibility to care for ourselves as much as we can. When we cannot meet the challenges with which we are faced, we ask for help. On a spiritual level, our brothers are commanded to be our keepers in this situation. That commandment doesn't give us the right to forcibly take. Let them stand condemned who refuse to provide for the needy. Government is simply not the best equipped for the job.

In the documentary "The Mormons" the church welfare system was discussed. They mentioned how efficient the church was at providing aid, siting Katrina as an example. Churches and local communities are just so much better at this then the government as FEMA demonstrated so very well.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by lundbaek »

Ezra Taft Benson called tax for the poor "legalized plunder". Would anyone have declined to sustain him as an Apostle or Church President or state, as did Harry Reid a while back, that he was leading members down the wrong path for his vehement opposition to socialist programs such as government healthcare paid for with money taken from tax payers? If so, please read "Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen" by H. Verlan Andersen on line at http://www.redhotlogo.com/MACBFAC4.htm , or at least read the review of the book in the "Book/Video" section of this forum. This is one of the few books ever recommended for reading in a conference talk by an apostle. (April 1972)

Excerpt from Ch. 7
ACTS OF GOVERNMENT WHICH CONSTITUTE AN EXERCISE OF UNRIGHTEOUS DOMINION

Men may exercise unrighteous dominion upon one another through the agency of government in just as many ways as they can when acting outside its framework. The most common method, however, is by denying or interfering with the right to own and control property, one of the elements of freedom. The following welfare state practices typify the methods used.

PLUNDER BY GOVERNMENT

Government can give nothing to one person unless it has first taken something from someone else. This taking is usually in the form of taxes which the taxpayer is compelled to pay at the risk of having his property taken by force. How would you regard compulsory taking if performed without being legalized?

Suppose it were suggested that you join a group that was going to use force to take part of the property from a wealthy citizen "A" and give it to "B" who had but little, or divide it among your group who were also "poor." Would it violate your conscience to do this?

Or, applying the Golden Rule, put yourself in "A's" shoes. He has already given all he desires to charity. Are you not violating his conscience when you compel him to give more? Would you enjoy having someone dictate how much you must give to your church, a hospital or a college? Would not this be a plain case of theft? And if you pass a law and legalize the taking and the giving, have you really changed the essential nature of the act? Haven't you merely legalized stealing?

Another problem which should worry those favoring plunder by government is this: How much of "A's" property should be taken – 10%, 20%, or more? What answer are you going to give to the socialists and communists who propose taking 100% and then returning to "A" only what he "needs"? Is there any valid moral distinction between taking one half or all? Is it not an exercise of unrighteous dominion to forcibly take any property from one to whom it belongs and give it to another to whom it does not belong? Each person must let his own conscience determine this, with the risk that if he reaches the wrong conclusion, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

President David O. Mckay has given his views on the matter in these words:

We are placed on this earth to work, to live; and the earth will give us a living. It is our duty to strive to make a success of what we possess-to till the earth, subdue matter, conquer the glebe, take care of the cattle, the flocks and the herds. It is the Government's duty to see that you are protected in these efforts, and no other man has the right to deprive you of any of your privileges. But it is not the Government's duty to support you. That is one reason why I shall raise my voice as long as God gives me sound or ability, against this Communistic idea that the Government will take care of us all, and everything belongs to the Government. It is wrong! No wonder, in trying to perpetuate that idea, they become anti-Christ, because that doctrine strikes directly against the doctrine of the Savior. No government owes you a living. You get it yourself by your own acts!-never by trespassing upon the rights of a neighbor; never by cheating him. You put a blemish upon your character the moment you do. ({Author's emphasis} Statements on Communism and the Constitution of the United States. p. 23, Deseret Book Co., 1966)

There are those who will insist that some people absolutely must receive assistance and that we simply cannot allow them to starve. It is hoped that everyone will agree to this and when we observe anyone suffering from want, we will administer to their needs. Stating the matter in this form does not recognize the extremely important moral problem of "taking" which is unavoidably a part of government charity. Let us restate the proposition so as to include the entire moral question. If you saw one person in need and another with plenty, would you use force to compel a more equal division? Would it violate your conscience to physically coerce one neighbor to share his means with another?

Most people agree that each person has a moral obligation to be charitable, but is it morally right for us to compel others to be as charitable as we think they should be? Is it not rather our moral obligation to allow them to determine for themselves how much they .shall give?

If those who are wealthy fail to voluntarily impart of their substance to the poor, they will be adequately punished by the Lord for their selfishness. (D&C 104:18) If, through the force of government or otherwise they are compelled to divide with those in need, how can the Lord either bless them for being charitable or punish them for being uncharitable? The same freedom which permits men to do evil permits them to do good. If you destroy one, you have destroyed both and made freedom of choice, with its consequent rewards and punishments, impossible.

When those who are poor undertake to obtain their sustenance without working for it, they bring themselves under condemnation. The Lord has indicated in the following sequence of verses that the poor whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men's goods will suffer punishment along with the selfish rich:

Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: the harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!

Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men's goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!" (D&C 56: 16-17)

Also, one would do well to review "The Proper Role of Government" by Ezra Taft Benson.

User avatar
Moses
captain of 100
Posts: 316
Location: New Zealand

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by Moses »

Legalised plunder, the operative word is legalised, so its an oxymoron.

User avatar
Moses
captain of 100
Posts: 316
Location: New Zealand

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by Moses »

Question for you. What would my Mother do in Utah , she fell needs immediate hip replacement,is 90 years old. no money ,no insurance?

It may sound arrogant to you to say that some would rather the poor not get help. But even though that may not be the intent of what is said. In effect that is the reality.

The logic of course is assuming we are all LDS. "MOST" people are not LDS. Its really not a reality to use that logic. If we were all LDS,then we could talk about this in a different light.

Satan may or may not have some input to welfare. But, Satans hold on the rich and priveliged, has nessecitated an alternative way of helping others, Vis Welfare.We cant have it both ways.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by lundbaek »

Based on our experience when my mother sustained a broken hip at about 90, individual action on the part of family members and private charity resolved all problems that could be resolved considering her condition. She lived until 99 with limited care from outside. She had so many family and friends close by that she didn't even want to come live with us.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by shadow »

Moses, just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right. Abortion is legal, yet God says no murdering. Plunder or theft CAN be made legal, but God says thou shalt not steal. Look to the higher law. BTW, that phrase came from a gentleman by the name of Ezra T. Benson. Heard of him??

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by lundbaek »

My above reply to Moses' specific question 3 posts above "What would my mother do in Utah?" is probably about as useful as the extent of information Moses provided. "she fell needs immediate hip replacement, is 90 years old. no money ,no insurance?" does not tell much about the situation on the basis of my experience with my mother and a grandfather who sustained broken hips that could not be replaced.

Just a few of the factors that need to be considered would be: 1.) Is hip replacement even an option in her condition? 2.) What negotiable assets does she have or have access to? 3.) How much money could family members contribute to her care? 4.) Could she live permanently and be adequately cared for with a family member?

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by ChelC »

That's right Lundbaek. Hip replacement surgery isn't always possible at that age because recovery can be too much for the body. I used to work at an assisted living center and it was quite frequent that surgeries were not performed due to health issues related to age.

Moses, have your extended family members contributed what they can? Have you contacted the local bishop? If you need help with contacting her local leaders here in Utah, then PM me and I'll see if I can find out for you.

BTW - The thing I see as arrogant is assuming the worst in people. If you're a good person, why not operate under the assumption that most others are too? It's not a pipe dream. Most people are good.

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by ChelC »

Okay wait... I'm confused... she's not in Utah? Was that hypothetical?

User avatar
Moses
captain of 100
Posts: 316
Location: New Zealand

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by Moses »

Yes my dear friend it was hypothetical.:)

This is her second hip replacement in two years.

She has a heaert condition and the skill of the surgeons pulled her through.

With the greatest respect to President Benson , whom I admire a lot, I dont hang on to every political view he has, neither do I use the same soap or after shave that he used. My conscience tells me that my Mum is right to use the public health system as she needs it.I find that "not possible" is really
"not econmical" in many cases. maybe she would have a short life after the surgery and not "cost effective"?

The evils of the dole is another thing, when people choose to make a life style of indolence, that is what I beleive is evil.

I may give you a paradox here to President Bensons words. On more that one occasion and especially at our breanch dedication of our chapel . in the UK, Prominent GAs. have commented on the very good health care system we have in the UK and " it is the envy of the world" that was in 1967-8.

I feel the wrong is really that anyone would say that my Mums life or any other sick person being saved is wrong because it is paid for by the tax dollar. ( pound).

So are you saying that without help from family or church, the person would be sent home to die?

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by jbalm »

Here's what would have happened to her in the U.S.

She would have received whatever emergency care she needed before anyone even inquired about her ability to pay.

Since she is 90, she probably would have had her procedure paid for by Medicare. If she was younger, she probably would have had it paid for by health insurance.

If she had no insurance, she probably would have applied for payment assistance and/or grants that most hospitals provide in house. Believe it or not, there are numerous charitable organizations that pay the medical bills of the poor. I know. I have given to them.

In the worst case scenario, she would have had the hip replacement surgery, been unable to pay for the bill, and either made installment payments, or have it discharged in bankruptcy.

Not perfect, but to suggest that the poor don't receive medical care in the U.S. is absurd. Is that the kind of propaganda they dish out in the EU to make you feel good about paying taxes?

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by Mark »

Not perfect, but to suggest that the poor don't receive medical care in the U.S. is absurd. Is that the kind of propaganda they dish out in the EU to make you feel good about paying taxes?

You have identified something very important here JB. There is a massive amount of propoganda that is going on when it comes to freedom and capitalist based systems. Those socialists both inside and outside this country must demonize capitalism and free enterprise so as to convince the masses that socialism and its sister communism is really the only answer to what ills mankind is facing. They are expert at tugging at the heartstrings to paint a very gloomy and hopeless picture of any system that is not based on socialist/communist principles. Heck just look at Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama and all the support they receive for their socialist ideas inside America. Now imagine what outsiders like Moses and Aussie are being flooded with. Is it any wonder that they feel the way they do? This is why President McKay and Pres. Benson said over and over that communism and socialism are adversarial systems based on principles that must be identified and fought against. Unfortunately the craddle to grave socialists have been to all pervading to counteract with the true principles of freedom and agency. With all the loudspeakers turned on full blast who can listen to the still small voice? The philosophies of men mingled with scripture seem to take precedence with most unfortunately.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by lundbaek »

Prominent GAs. may have commented on the very good health care system the UK had that was "the envy of the world" in 1967-8, but it sure wasn't 10 years later when we lived nearly two and a half years there (in the North Riding). First, my wife had been a nurse some years in Denmark before I swept her away, and knows good from bad in health care. Second, when she needed a mastoidectomy we went private because another member of the Billingham Ward had been waiting 3 years for the exact same surgery in some sort of a queue and was still waiting when we left. There are many doctors who take only private patients who are willing and able to pay cash. Third, we all used exclusively private care because it was better and we had insurance thru the Ameican company (G.E. Co.) I worked for. In our one encounter with the national system, my wife removed our son from the care of an ear specialist and took him to our by then private family doctor, where things went much faster and better.

And speaking of GAs saying sweet nothings to make certain people feel good for whatever reason, during a gathering of world leaders held in conjunction with the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Utah, President Hinkley, speaking of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, reportedly stated that "We are highly honored to have this good, wonderful leader with us. What a tremendous work he's doing in trying to bring peace and goodness to the people of the world." http://www.deseretnews.com/oly/view/0,3 ... 73,00.html if it is still accessable. I thought how could any one say that about a so-called world leader who would tell us that “the anticipated reforms will erode national sovereignty, infringe on personal liberties, and lead the world into a system of global governance." and be a knowing party to the 1994 atrocities in Rwanda, among other things.

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by ChelC »

If you're forced to pay into the system, and you and your family really cannot afford the bills, then by all means take advantage. But do it while trying to reform the system.

Before my husband and I had children we were in the crappiest place financially. We paid sooo many taxes! We had medical bills for infertility and surgeries, we had vehicle repair after vehicle repair. Then we had adoption expenses. We barely stayed afloat, and we only did so by going into debt. Our friends who did not have these problems and made slightly less money qualified for everything. They were richer than us, on our backs. On paper our medical bills were a lot - but under the 7% of our income or whatever is required to claim them. On paper we made decent money, but it didn't account for all the other expenses and misfortunes that arose. When tax time came we had to pay even though we always claimed zero exemptions.

My point is that while it may seem humane to your grandmother, someone else is paying the piper. In a voluntary system when our misfortunes arose we could have chosen to protect our family by not paying the taxes and avoiding debt. The Consititution was written to allow taxation, but for taxes that could be avoided. If someone is on the verge of bankruptcy, they can avoid doing things which are heavily taxed, whereas the graduated taxes of these days will sink that person.

The real question is - Do I have a right to medical care? I think the answer is no.

Proud 2b Peculiar
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5560
Location: American Fork, Utah

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by Proud 2b Peculiar »

Moses, what would happen to your family or property if you some how did not pay into the system?

User avatar
Moses
captain of 100
Posts: 316
Location: New Zealand

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by Moses »

My point is that while it may seem humane to your grandmother, someone else is paying the piper
NOt true, My father when he was alive, paid his taxes all his life. My mother did for a while while she was working. You see your not taking someones money. I am sure you would not complain about paying to an insurance company? No difference really except your premiums are affordable and theres no small print to tell you after 50 years of paying , they have a get out clause to avoid paying you. Im sure that if you have a big claim, it isnt your own money that pays the claim, its other customers who pay it.

What would we do if we didnt pay into the system, Well if you are an alien and dont qualify for residence, you would get nothing. But as a resident you would still get the treament for free. In England I beleive Doctors visits are also free. In New Zealand we still pay for doctors visits. But hospital visits are free.

Hey guys ,remember that we belong to God? and all we have in this world is provided by him and belongs to him? Do you remember that Joseph and Mary paid taxes and got nothing in return.

We in our country see education as a right, health care as a right. Our modern founding fathers saw to it that all people have an equal start in these respects.

You talk about socialism and communism, I think many people would be highly offended by that assumption. Someone described socialism as the state taking over businesses and saying that you have to work here or there l, and what job you could or could not have. This is a falsehood propogated by America at Europe in general. And is nothing short of a dishonest.

England Germany and all those nations are very hard working people who are proud to earn what they eat. possibly ,more than the people in the States. :wink: I rarely saw my father. as the "Capitalistic" bosses paid him such a small hourly rate that he had to work all hours. His bosses went home early, and played golf . :)

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by shadow »

Isurance is optional. If I CHOOSE to not insure my home and it burns down, my loss. My responsibility. The nice thing about insurance is all the options available. If it was government ran it would be stripped down with no options so all would be equal.

Choice or force. Gods way or Lucifers way.

I agree that your mother had every right to get that hip replacement. She paid into the system, the other part of that agreement is that she be cared for. But for those who don't want to participate, why do you support sending them to jail? That's what happens when you choose to not participate isn't it?

Moses, where did you get the notion that education and health care are rights? How about the fruits of ones labor? That to me is a right. Why do you think it isn't?

User avatar
Moses
captain of 100
Posts: 316
Location: New Zealand

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by Moses »

Where did I get the notion that health and education are rights.

A baby is born with no protection has the right to the same start as the next baby.

He has the right to expect to be cared for ( in my world) he has the right to expect to be taught the skills of life. Society has an obligation to care for its own. First family and then society. (Of course in a decent society)

Your principles are foreign to me. I find them hard to work out the way you seem to associate cleverly the pre existence and free agency with, to me,not appropriate examples.

Consider this. If I dont pay my tithing I cant go to the Temple. so in that sense if I want to go there I am forced to pay my tithing. I am forced to see my fast offering go to help people in other countries, My tithing goes to the USA I dont have the option of it staying in New Zealand. I think its okay, I dont mind being forced to pay tithing. but lets get even handed. we are forced to do many things in this life. Why not speak out against everything we dont happen to like? Force is an emotive word and too often used in the wrong way. Of course I dont see tithing as force, but in the same way I dont see taxation as force.

Proud 2b Peculiar
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5560
Location: American Fork, Utah

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by Proud 2b Peculiar »

Moses wrote:Where did I get the notion that health and education are rights.

A baby is born with no protection has the right to the same start as the next baby.

He has the right to expect to be cared for ( in my world) he has the right to expect to be taught the skills of life. Society has an obligation to care for its own. First family and then society. (Of course in a decent society)

Your principles are foreign to me. I find them hard to work out the way you seem to associate cleverly the pre existence and free agency with, to me,not appropriate examples.

Consider this. If I dont pay my tithing I cant go to the Temple. so in that sense if I want to go there I am forced to pay my tithing. I am forced to see my fast offering go to help people in other countries, My tithing goes to the USA I dont have the option of it staying in New Zealand. I think its okay, I dont mind being forced to pay tithing. but lets get even handed. we are forced to do many things in this life. Why not speak out against everything we dont happen to like? Force is an emotive word and too often used in the wrong way. Of course I dont see tithing as force, but in the same way I dont see taxation as force.

Re-read the proclamation to the world again and see who is to take responsibility for children, and we're are entitled to.

And the whole tithing bit, is not a good example at all. You can choose to pay it or not. You are not robbed of your property or your life if you do not pay it. No one comes banging on your door because you didn't pay... you see what you are doing.. don't you?

I think that you are a nice guy, but this justification just baffles me.

You see the words of the prophets on these things, and yet still justify living differently, and that we should too.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by shadow »

Moses, first off, hows your mom? I've been praying for her and for Love Christs brother & girlfriend (his girlfriend). I hope all are well.

Proud 2b Peculiar
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5560
Location: American Fork, Utah

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by Proud 2b Peculiar »

shadow wrote:Moses, first off, hows your mom? I've been praying for her and for Love Christs brother & girlfriend (his girlfriend). I hope all are well.
I really appreciate that....I am on the phone with my mom right now hearing more about it.

User avatar
Moses
captain of 100
Posts: 316
Location: New Zealand

Re: Priorities Money or people?

Post by Moses »

Thanks for your prayers:) I have been weeping a lot today , when she came round after her hip operation she tore her lure out of her arm, she was delerious. it was the anestethics

it wore off and then she asked me to make her a drink, which I can't do in the hospital ward, she thought we were at home. I am sorry if I have seemed harsh in my comments, but I am under a lot of pressure right now,

Mum is now sleeping, I just left her and drove home. I will be there tomorrow to see her again.
Goodnight all

Post Reply