British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Discuss political news items / current events.
User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2300
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby gclayjr » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:24 pm

dafty,
And also why do you presume I must be less active or of non lds background to disagree with you on the subject of NHS? l
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I was talking about your perverted definition of "rod of iron". I acknowledge that the BoM is not specific in regards to NHS. But is IS specific in regards to the definition of "Rod of Iron".

And it ain't yours!
As a matter of fact ROD is JUSTICE and will judge in RIGHTEOUSNESS...but this subject belongs to another thread
Your definition is sometimes found in protestant Biblical analysis, but not in LDS doctrine. So if you want to pursue your fantasy that the rod of iron will be a stick of justice to beat the disobedient with when Christ comes to reign, you will be going contrary to LDS doctrine!

Regards,

George Clay

Sponsored Links

Advertisements

Medical Cost Sharing - It's not insurance it's better!

dafty
captain of 100
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:49 am

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby dafty » Tue Jul 11, 2017 1:19 am

gclayjr wrote:
Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:24 pm
dafty,
And also why do you presume I must be less active or of non lds background to disagree with you on the subject of NHS? l
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I was talking about your perverted definition of "rod of iron". I acknowledge that the BoM is not specific in regards to NHS. But is IS specific in regards to the definition of "Rod of iron
And it ain't yours!
As a matter of fact ROD is JUSTICE and will judge in RIGHTEOUSNESS...but this subject belongs to another thread
Your definition is sometimes found in protestant Biblical analysis, but not in LDS doctrine. So if you want to pursue your fantasy that the rod of iron will be a stick of justice to beat the disobedient with when Christ comes to reign, you will be going contrary to LDS doctrine!

Regards,

George Clay
Look, I mentioned ROD only to illustrate my point with regards to there being a monarchy during Millenium and King being able to make decisions for us (in difficult cases i presume), very similar to what the Crown did with baby G. Then, in one of the consecutive posts you said Im here to correct your LDS ways as an disaffected mormon. I ASSUMED you must still be talking about NHS as per D&C113 and the book of Isaiah - ROD as a servant is a doctrine of the Church. I see that my assumption was incorrect, for which I apologise, my bad :ymhug:
I really enjoyed discussing the subject with you, both NHS and the baby G's case. I hope one day, we'll both know for sure whats what.
But for now,...Here in UK we would say "break a leg", but seeing the state of the US health service, I better just wish you luck my friend =)) :)) :ymhug: :ymparty:

JohnnyL
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:10 pm

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby JohnnyL » Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:18 pm

Sunain wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:25 pm
JohnnyL wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:17 pm
Sunain wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:30 pm
Despite the "socialist" issues with the BHS and UHS in Canada, having used both in my family, they are light years ahead of the United States. In this day and age, no one should be denied health care services because they can't afford to do so, especially in First World Countries like Canada, the UK and the USA. Would Christ deny healing services to only those that could afford to do so? I think not. Socialism in a Health Care system isn't an issue that many members of the church tend to believe.
No, he would--like so many people on this board say--heal them with the priesthood.

What does affording health care have to do with being in a first-world country?

A better question to ask would be, "Would Christ steal money from someone so they could afford those healing services?" And that answer is so much easier and clearer: Nope.

If I wreck my car, should you pay for my new one? I feel that's my right, ya know.
Do you love your money so much that you would allow another person to suffer because they couldn't get treatment? Not everyone is as fortunate as you. That happens all to often in the United States every day! The parents in the article here in this thread had to crowd fund over a MILLION dollars for the chance to treat their child in the USA because medical treatments cost SO much there. You honestly think that's fair?! Would that not completely ruin the financial lives of 99.999% of any American?! That's where universal health care systems come into play balancing the capitalist society that has infected the American Medical system. While the UK, Canadian and even Australian health care systems are far from perfect, they do work very well for millions of people by balancing the costs for all.

I rest well at night knowing, if I or someone I love gets sick, I can take them to the hospital and not have to worry about going bankrupt. This is the reason I live in Canada and not the United States. I can take a friend to the hospital as well and not have to worry:
Do they have medicaid?
Do they have insurance?
Will they be mad that I took them to the hospital for treatment they can't afford?!

The greed of money has polluted the ideals of the people of the United States that they value money above the welfare of the people. Start now to learn the tenants of the United Order, everyone with enough that is sufficient for their needs. I honestly don't think any American these days could even cope with the United Order/law of consecration. Money is linked with the class system, so you guys are fine being above people with your loads of money to get the proper health care you need and are therefore better than those that get sick and can't afford treatment. Yup. That sounds real Christlike to me!
And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them. (Moses 7:16, 18.)
And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. (4 Ne. 1:3)
The health of a nation cannot be compared to wrecking your car. If my money from my taxes goes to help someone else get better because of cancer, they had a baby, they broke their arm, or whatever, I feel at the end of the day, in general my money was used to help others. Is that not what Christ wants us to do? Help others anyway we can? Now if I get sick, I can be grateful there are others that pay for me in return. It is not much different than the Fast Offerings we give. A missionary companion of mine recently had his first child and it cost him $8000k because he was living in the USA! He's concerned that this maybe his only child because he'd have to save up for years to afford another one at that price. Thankfully they had a healthy baby, unlike the parents in the article we are discussing. Here, it's free because the service is paid through the universal healthcare system plus they even give free parenting classes before and after childbirth.

Since we don't seem to have the Melchizedek Priesthood keys or faith to the healing power that Christ did to heal the blind, raise the dead, heal the sick, that's a non-issue these days. The church has always told and taught us to seek professional medical attention when we can. Priesthood blessings are also used in conjunction with this medical assistance.
Who are you to judge my car??? Seriously. It's based on what you "feel"? What if my car is needed for work? Or for any other of myriad possibilities of doing good?
Who are you to decide what is deserves someone else's money, and what doesn't?
Who is the government to decide?

Let me repeat: A better question to ask would be, "Would Christ steal money from someone so they could afford those healing services?" Could you respond to that? Y/N

$1 million for a life. I wonder how many thousands of lives that could save in many third-world countries...
Is it not plain arrogant and proud, and completely un-Christlike, to believe that using money for a 1% chance at improvement for a near-dead person is more important than saving the lives of thousands of children?

JohnnyL
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:10 pm

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby JohnnyL » Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:28 pm

dafty wrote:
Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:15 pm
Oh and one more, since you mentioned BoM. Have a read through it again, because GOD Himself, decreed a judgement- not upon a NHS loving Brits, but greedy and materialistic US citizens...starting with His own household :-ss
US, or Canadians and Mexicans? At least, that's what 90% of BoM "researchers" would say...
Of course, it says Gentiles. Do Brits fit? :p
Wait, are you saying that the US or Americans are the household of God?! J/j.

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2300
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby gclayjr » Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:49 am

Excellent Column by Jonah Goldberg, that makes my point elegantly . He makes a good case that technically. probably the state is making a correct choice but...
I see it far more as a matter of due process. In every liberal democratic country dedicated to the rule of law, the state has to jump through hoops to deny citizens their rights. Even when the state knows a criminal is guilty, it still must go through the motions and prove its case.

Charlie's parents aren't criminals, they're distraught parents. And parents have rights. They aren't absolute rights. Parents can't kill their children or let them die through inaction.

But the state can.

Societies depend on the principle that parents are their children's best guardians. It's appalling for the state -- particularly one that runs the health-care system -- to claim that it, not the loving parents, have the final say.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah071217.php3

Regards,

George Clay

Michelle
captain of 100
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 2:33 pm

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby Michelle » Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:46 am

JohnnyL said
"$1 million for a life. I wonder how many thousands of lives that could save in many third-world countries...
Is it not plain arrogant and proud, and completely un-Christlike, to believe that using money for a 1% chance at improvement for a near-dead person is more important than saving the lives of thousands of children?"

BOOM!

You did it! You just distilled the entire argument into the difference between ethics and morals, force and agency, socialism and capitalism, relativism and absolute truth.

You just created a real life ethical situation to match the ethical "train on the track" question discussed in another thread.

It may be argued that allowing Charlie to die is ethical, because of all the lives the money could save, if not moral. Moral meaning submissive to God's law. You have decided that ethics trumps morals, that the importance of Life as an absolute truth is fallible and submissive to the reasoning of man.

You have asked Charlie's parents to pull the lever to put the train on the track where there son stands to save the passenger car from falling off the cliff and you have judged them as wrong for choosing their son!

You have said "agency only exists if you choose as I want you too, otherwise your agency will be delegated to those smarter, wiser, less emotionally attached than you."

You fail to understand that the million dollars they were given , were given voluntarily for a specific purpose and person: Charlie. Those same people, could have chosen to donate that money to third world countries. For all we know, they may do that too. But we do know in this case their purpose. Who are you to say that the "greater good" is better met by another worthy goal and that Charlie's parents should ignore the wishes of the donors (members of society) and use it for another purpose you, or any other person or group of people, deems more important?

You have sided with socialism. The good of society outweighs the needs of an individual in society. That you are a mathematical equation of a person whose worth is based in economics not eternal truths.

There was another group of socialists, socialist was actually a part of the name of the group, who made the same argument. They placed, based on their fallible reasoning, some individuals above another and allowed to die, or flat out killed those who ruined their "perfect" equation.

I know I am being very direct. This is not meant to be a slap down, but a wake up call. Considering my past experience with you, I'd be surprised if you read this far, but if you have, thank you. This post is just as much for JohnnyL as any other person who innocently wondered the same thing.

If relativism and socialism are ok in this instance, it is only a matter of time before you become their victim as well.

kenssurplus
captain of 100
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 11:28 am

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby kenssurplus » Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:32 am

dafty wrote:
Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:04 am


lol wow. that argument is RETARDED(am I gonna be banned for this comment? please dont :p )
So you would rather see the baby suffer, just for the sake of the parents being able to make the decision?
This actually was Satan's argument against Father's plan. And yes, Father in Heaven would "rather see the baby suffer, just for the sake of the parents being able to make the decision", as that is why we have suffering and trials in this life. The gift of agency (the ability to choose) was so important, that Father in Heaven was willing to let 1/3 of his children go to outer darkness because of it, and is willing to let millions suffer in this life as the direct result of decisions of a few or even one - With the caveat that there is a Savior and an everlasting and infinite atonement through him that will "fix" the injustices and sufferings all endure in mortality, if they will accept him and follow him.
dafty wrote:
Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:04 am

You will not be able to make rushed decisions and in the name of false liberty make decisions that affect others!!!! The poor baby is BRAIN DEAD. the parents will make it suffer more!!! somebody please step in and stop this cruelty!!!
Yes, there was one who offered to stop people from making decisions that affect others. Can't you see that the very plea you are asking for is the one the devil put forth in the pre-existence? The way I understand it is, people in the millennium will still have the ability and freedom to make those choices which would harm others, but will not do it because of their goodness and strength. The devil will just not be able to get them to do those things - he will be bound.

The whole point of the thread is freedom to make choices has been curtailed or taken away. Yes it is a loss of freedom whether taken away forcibly or willingly given. That is why it is an evil because it is contrary to God's will, plan, and gift of agency. We should use our agency to OFFER assistance and render aid when accepted and wanted, rather than force our assistance and help others without regard for their choice. That is the point of this thread.
Doctrine and Covenants 6:34,36
34 Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail.
36 Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.

kenssurplus
captain of 100
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 11:28 am

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby kenssurplus » Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:14 am

JohnnyL wrote: Is it not plain arrogant and proud, and completely un-Christlike, to believe that using money for a 1% chance at improvement for a near-dead person is more important than saving the lives of thousands of children?
JohnnyL, There were those who thought as you do in the scriptures. They complained about a very expensive oil being used on one rather than the oil be sold and the money used for many. Because of preoccupation with money and the economic ramifications of different choices, one chose to sell out his God for some silver. It is my belief that when we focus on the cost of things and the monetary and economic ramifications, we loose sight of doing good or rather doing good comes a second place to whether it makes sense according to the numbers monetarily. In the City of Zion, where all is had in common, money considerations will not be an issue. If they are for you, then I might venture you would not want to live there because the street will be constantly torn up in front of your house. :D :ymhug:

I have found myself afflicted with this from time to time. I see the ornate furnishings of the church buildings, the care of the grounds, the cost of this or that and think to myself, man if I just had the money that it cost for this tree, or lighting of this building for a month, or water bill, etc... I could finally live without my roof leaking, or shoes that don't fall apart etc... I know of some who live in a small run down trailer and that could help them get the things they need. I am evil in my heart for thinking like this. Instead, perhaps I should offer to those who I see, with whatever need they have, those things I am blessed with (whether it be time, talents, abilities, knowledge, physical things, or wealth) that might ease their burden, and leave any cost comparisons and economics out of it.
Doctrine and Covenants 6:34,36
34 Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail.
36 Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.

Sunain
captain of 100
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:48 pm
Location: Canada

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby Sunain » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:24 pm

NHS holds on to top spot in healthcare survey
Commonwealth Fund analysis of healthcare systems in 11 nations finds NHS is the best, safest and most affordable

The NHS has been judged the best, safest and most affordable healthcare system out of 11 countries analysed and ranked by experts from the influential Commonwealth Fund health thinktank.

It is the second time in a row that the study, which is undertaken every three years, has found the UK to have the highest-rated health system.

The NHS has held on to the top spot despite the longest budget squeeze in its 69-year history, serious understaffing and the disruption caused by a radical restructuring of the service in England in 2013.

Its ranking is even more notable because the thinktank found the UK to put the fourth smallest amount of GDP into healthcare among the 11 countries. While the US spends 16.6% of its national income on health, the UK comes near the bottom, investing just 9.9%. Only New Zealand (9.4%), Norway (9.3%) and Australia (9%) put in less.

The UK emerged with the best healthcare system overall, just ahead of Australia, with the Netherlands a little further behind. A group of experts assessed them against 11 criteria designed to measure the effectiveness of different health systems.

The rankings:
1 UK
2 Australia
3 Netherlands
4 Norway
5 New Zealand
6 Sweden
7 Switzerland
8 Germany
9 Canada
10 France
11 United States
Seems the BHS is one of the best ranked medical systems in the world.

JohnnyL
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:10 pm

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby JohnnyL » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:28 pm

Michelle wrote:
Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:46 am
JohnnyL said
"$1 million for a life. I wonder how many thousands of lives that could save in many third-world countries...
Is it not plain arrogant and proud, and completely un-Christlike, to believe that using money for a 1% chance at improvement for a near-dead person is more important than saving the lives of thousands of children?"

BOOM!

You did it! You just distilled the entire argument into the difference between ethics and morals, force and agency, socialism and capitalism, relativism and absolute truth.

You just created a real life ethical situation to match the ethical "train on the track" question discussed in another thread.

It may be argued that allowing Charlie to die is ethical, because of all the lives the money could save, if not moral. Moral meaning submissive to God's law. You have decided that ethics trumps morals, that the importance of Life as an absolute truth is fallible and submissive to the reasoning of man.

You have asked Charlie's parents to pull the lever to put the train on the track where there son stands to save the passenger car from falling off the cliff and you have judged them as wrong for choosing their son!

You have said "agency only exists if you choose as I want you too, otherwise your agency will be delegated to those smarter, wiser, less emotionally attached than you."

You fail to understand that the million dollars they were given , were given voluntarily for a specific purpose and person: Charlie. Those same people, could have chosen to donate that money to third world countries. For all we know, they may do that too. But we do know in this case their purpose. Who are you to say that the "greater good" is better met by another worthy goal and that Charlie's parents should ignore the wishes of the donors (members of society) and use it for another purpose you, or any other person or group of people, deems more important?

You have sided with socialism. The good of society outweighs the needs of an individual in society. That you are a mathematical equation of a person whose worth is based in economics not eternal truths.

There was another group of socialists, socialist was actually a part of the name of the group, who made the same argument. They placed, based on their fallible reasoning, some individuals above another and allowed to die, or flat out killed those who ruined their "perfect" equation.

I know I am being very direct. This is not meant to be a slap down, but a wake up call. Considering my past experience with you, I'd be surprised if you read this far, but if you have, thank you. This post is just as much for JohnnyL as any other person who innocently wondered the same thing.

If relativism and socialism are ok in this instance, it is only a matter of time before you become their victim as well.
Actually, I stopped reading after the first paragraph--you are so off. It was an argument against what was going on, using Sunain's reasoning.

They can do what they want with the money, and whoever gives to them--though yes, I would consider it foolish, compared to what COULD be done with it.

That "good steward" kind of thang, ya know?

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2300
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby gclayjr » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:40 pm

Sunian,

Whenever you see "quality ranking" statistics, you always shouid check to see what the agenda of the ranking institute might be. Would you trust a 10 best presidents list from the Republican party?

Commonwealth Fund

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fund
The Commonwealth Fund, one of the first foundations to be established by a woman, was founded in 1918 with an endowment of almost $10 million by Anna M. Harkness. The widow of Stephen V. Harkness, a principal investor in Standard Oil, Mrs. Harkness wanted to “do something for the welfare of mankind.” Anna’s son, Edward Stephen Harkness, became the Commonwealth Fund’s first president and hired a staff of people to help him build the foundation. Edward Harkness possessed a "passionate commitment to social reform" and was "determined to improve health and health services for Americans."[2] Through additional gifts and bequests between 1918 and 1959, the Harkness family's total contribution to the fund's endowment amounted to more than $53 million. Today,[when?] the Commonwealth Fund’s endowment stands at almost $700 million.
Regards,,

George Clay

JohnnyL
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:10 pm

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby JohnnyL » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:51 pm

gclayjr wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:40 pm
Sunian,

Whenever you see "quality ranking" statistics, you always shouid check to see what the agenda of the ranking institute might be. Would you trust a 10 best presidents list from the Republican party?

Commonwealth Fund

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fund
The Commonwealth Fund, one of the first foundations to be established by a woman, was founded in 1918 with an endowment of almost $10 million by Anna M. Harkness. The widow of Stephen V. Harkness, a principal investor in Standard Oil, Mrs. Harkness wanted to “do something for the welfare of mankind.” Anna’s son, Edward Stephen Harkness, became the Commonwealth Fund’s first president and hired a staff of people to help him build the foundation. Edward Harkness possessed a "passionate commitment to social reform" and was "determined to improve health and health services for Americans."[2] Through additional gifts and bequests between 1918 and 1959, the Harkness family's total contribution to the fund's endowment amounted to more than $53 million. Today,[when?] the Commonwealth Fund’s endowment stands at almost $700 million.
Regards,,

George Clay
And the fact that they used GDP as a main factor is not a really fair part of the judgment.

I also find it interesting that many social health countries are not on the list--what happened?

dafty
captain of 100
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:49 am

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby dafty » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:26 pm

JohnnyL wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:51 pm
gclayjr wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:40 pm
Sunian,

Whenever you see "quality ranking" statistics, you always shouid check to see what the agenda of the ranking institute might be. Would you trust a 10 best presidents list from the Republican party?

Commonwealth Fund

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fund
The Commonwealth Fund, one of the first foundations to be established by a woman, was founded in 1918 with an endowment of almost $10 million by Anna M. Harkness. The widow of Stephen V. Harkness, a principal investor in Standard Oil, Mrs. Harkness wanted to “do something for the welfare of mankind.” Anna’s son, Edward Stephen Harkness, became the Commonwealth Fund’s first president and hired a staff of people to help him build the foundation. Edward Harkness possessed a "passionate commitment to social reform" and was "determined to improve health and health services for Americans."[2] Through additional gifts and bequests between 1918 and 1959, the Harkness family's total contribution to the fund's endowment amounted to more than $53 million. Today,[when?] the Commonwealth Fund’s endowment stands at almost $700 million.
Regards,,

George Clay

I read this article with its ranking a couple of days back and chose not to post it because I was sure it would be ignored and dismissed as inaccurate by the greedy, materialistic and non-charitable among us...and of course you have proven me right. I guess the old saying that you cant drag a dumb-donkey to water is still applicable,...wait a sec-or is it lead horse to water? well, same principle =))

User avatar
Robin Hood
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 10:18 am
Location: England

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby Robin Hood » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:16 pm

There you go with your jealousy again George.
If the ranking had the US top and the UK 11th, I'm sure you'd be rubbing our faces in it and making a big deal; telling us how universal healthcare doesn't work and so on.
You guys need to get into the 21st century. 😉

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2300
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby gclayjr » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:46 pm

Robin Hood,
You guys need to get into the 21st century.
I think we had better ideas and morals in 1787.

You Liberals/Progressives think that forward in time is forward in progress. Not necessarily so. We have been losing our freedom and and rights as Satan takes an even greater hold on our souls, usually by selling something for nothing.

Regards,

George Clay

PS; So you think that % GDP is the best measure of Health Care. I guess as a countryman of John Meynard Keynes, you would agree that the amount you spend is more important that what you get!... especially if you are convinced that it is someone else's money... especially the Evil 1% ers... unfortunately you will eventually discover that that is a lie also.

User avatar
Robin Hood
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 10:18 am
Location: England

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby Robin Hood » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:06 am

gclayjr wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:46 pm
Robin Hood,
You guys need to get into the 21st century.
I think we had better ideas and morals in 1787.

You Liberals/Progressives think that forward in time is forward in progress. Not necessarily so. We have been losing our freedom and and rights as Satan takes an even greater hold on our souls, usually by selling something for nothing.

Regards,

George Clay

PS; So you think that % GDP is the best measure of Health Care. I guess as a countryman of John Meynard Keynes, you would agree that the amount you spend is more important that what you get!... especially if you are convinced that it is someone else's money... especially the Evil 1% ers... unfortunately you will eventually discover that that is a lie also.
No George, I'm just pointing out that you are biased, and apparently incapable of acknowledging that you might be wrong, or at least not right, about something.

And who said GDP was the best measure? There you go putting words in people's mouths again. But it is one measure that can give some indication. There are others.
But I'm quite sure that if the GDP measure showed the US healthcare system in a better light, you wouldn't be complaining about it.

And your point about the "evil 1% ers" is, frankly, juvenile. Who said anything about that? Everyone pays for the NHS through a National Insurance system. Not just the rich. In fact, the rich don't pay it on their higher earnings; there is a cut off point. But don't let the truth get in the way of an opportunity to points score.... even if it's an obvious own-goal!

Sometimes George you seem quite intelligent and deep thinking; on ocassions you make very good points and enhance the quality of a thread. This was not one of those ocassions.

dafty
captain of 100
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:49 am

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby dafty » Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:28 am

Please, dont make a mistake thinking that Im posting this triumphantly. Its a sad story and in a way Id rather be wrong, however, to clarify certain issues let me quote the most recent bbc article regarding the matter-"US doctor said it was now too late to give Charlie nucleoside therapy". Baby guards brain, AS PREVIOUSLY DECLARED BY NHS SPECIALISTS,is damaged beyond any hope of repair(by nowdays medicine standards). THEREFORE, had the British government not stepped in and raised concerns, that poor baby would have been shipped over to US and experimented upon.The treatment would have been unsuccessful, YET the greedy doctor would have cashed in on 1.3 million donated by charitable people of Britain(...and others prob as well)...make ur own minds up

dafty
captain of 100
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:49 am

Re: British health service even more evil than hellish socialism it bows down to

Postby dafty » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:56 am

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 58341.html
Also, its worth having a little look at the article above...


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nvr, Yahtzee and 156 guests