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

[gclayjr]

dafty,

Remember only one thing.The elders advised utah people to vote for alcohol prohibition - to give government power to prohibit people from drinking/doing stupid thing...sometimes, its good for government to intervene with the right and objective decision, because otherwise our selfish desires (even if they are most noble ) and subjective outlook on things may cause more harm and suffering than good.

I guess as a Brit, you are not that aware of American history. The American Revolution was fought to free ourselves from the Yoke of the British King (no taxation without representation and all of that stuff). The belief at that time was the smaller, the federal government, the better. We wrote the Articles of Confederation and proceeded to go forward. Immediately things started to fall apart. We formed what was to be known as the Constitutional convention to try and fix the Articles of Confederation. The members of this convention soon figured out that the government under the Articles of Confederation was not fixable, and that we needed to start over. From that came the American Constitution. The whole long debate that occurred was to determine what was the proper balance between not enough central government and too much central government. So there is a balance, and honorable people can disagree over exactly where that balance rests.

However, There is a rather bright line you cross, once you move from simply defining laws of proper civil behavior, and a government taking over the responsibility for the provision of food, shelter and medicine from the individual in exchange for submission to the "benevolent" providers and administrators of those benefits.

Regards,

George Clay

[David13]

I can't understand how in the world anyone does not understand that the court, an official court of the land wherein the court lies, exists, is venued, is a part, an agency, an arm, a branch, a division of ... THE GOVERNMENT.
The English courts arose from ... THE KINGS COURT, of which the king was the original decider in that court, and then ultimately delegated that authority to 'lesser subordinates'. Judges.
Its comical the contortions some people with go to with regard to that.
Here, Amtrak is part of the government. It's owned lock, stock and barrel by the government.
But if you mention that anywhere near the trains, you will hear, "Oh!, but they are an independent agency!" As if that makes the slightest hoot of a difference.
Tell me, when, for their entire life they have shortages of now a billion or more dollars a year, does the government give them that money, make up their shortfall, IF THEY ARE NOT THE GOVERNMENT?
Does the government make up my business shortages?
dc

[dafty]

Does the government make up my business shortages? ...lol funny enough, couple of years back, when car industry/business was doing badly, UK government financed 2k £ grant for everyone exchanging their old car for brand new one...does that count?

[Robin Hood]

Does the government make up my business shortages? ...lol funny enough, couple of years back, when car industry/business was doing badly, UK government financed 2k £ grant for everyone exchanging their old car for brand new one...does that count?

The US government bailed out General Motors and other US car makers big time.

[dafty]

Does the government make up my business shortages? ...lol funny enough, couple of years back, when car industry/business was doing badly, UK government financed 2k £ grant for everyone exchanging their old car for brand new one...does that count?

The US government bailed out General Motors and other US car makers big time.

my previous post was a response to David13 post and question...i didnt quote him coz im too lazy lol x

[Robin Hood]

I can't understand how in the world anyone does not understand that the court, an official court of the land wherein the court lies, exists, is venued, is a part, an agency, an arm, a branch, a division of ... THE GOVERNMENT.
The English courts arose from ... THE KINGS COURT, of which the king was the original decider in that court, and then ultimately delegated that authority to 'lesser subordinates'. Judges.
Its comical the contortions some people with go to with regard to that.
Here, Amtrak is part of the government. It's owned lock, stock and barrel by the government.
But if you mention that anywhere near the trains, you will hear, "Oh!, but they are an independent agency!" As if that makes the slightest hoot of a difference.
Tell me, when, for their entire life they have shortages of now a billion or more dollars a year, does the government give them that money, make up their shortfall, IF THEY ARE NOT THE GOVERNMENT?
Does the government make up my business shortages?
dc

I can't understand why you guys can't get your heads around this.
The Crown is the ultimate authority in this country. The government is an agency of the Crown and is answerable to it. The judiciary is an agency of the Crown and is answerable to it.
But the judiciary is not answerable to the government, nor the government to the judiciary.

In terms of finance, the Crown is absolutely loaded. The government isn't, and has to raise money from taxation and/or borrowing. But the Crown is independently wealthy beyond measure. For example, every piece of real estate in this kingdom is ultimately owned by the Crown. Every house, every field, every road, factory, stadium, tree, farm, port, beach, mountain and valley is owned by the Crown.
Nice work if you can get it!

[kittycat51]

Robin Hood,

The judiciary are not a branch of the government. Why on earth would you think they are?
I don't think they are in your country either, but I may be wrong as I'm not such an expert on your country as you appear to suggest you are on mine.

Here in the U.S all children are all taught from grade school that there are 3 branches of Government; Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. The separation of powers between these 3 branches provides for checks and balances.

In Britain

http://www.britannia.com/gov/gov8.html

The Judiciary
The Lord Chancellor is head of the judiciary in England and Wales. His responsibilities include court procedure and, through the Court Service, the administration of the higher courts and many tribunals in England and Wales. He recommends all judicial appointments to the Crown - other than the highest, which are recommended by the Prime Minister - and appoints magistrates. Judges are normally appointed from practising lawyers. They are not subject to ministerial direction or control.

It appears that your Judicial system is much like ours

Could it be that you know as little about the freedoms you have lost as you do about the structure of either your government or ours?

Regards

George Clay

I thought that might be where you were going wrong.
The Crown is not the government. Oh that's right... you don't have the Crown over there. Well, that isn't entirely true, the Canadians do.
Maybe 4th of July was not such a good idea after all. =))

Robin I'm sure you are joking about the 4th of July not being such a good idea? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your comment. :-\ The 4th HAD to happen so that the Gospel of Jesus Christ could be restored in a country free of tyranny and where people had freedom of religion. It could not have happened ANY other way. Having said that I'm sure our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves to see what our country is slowing turning into. The whole thing regarding baby Gard is just plain sad. I can't imagine what the parents are going through.

[dafty]

Robin Hood,

The judiciary are not a branch of the government. Why on earth would you think they are?
I don't think they are in your country either, but I may be wrong as I'm not such an expert on your country as you appear to suggest you are on

Here in the U.S all children are all taught from grade school that there are 3 branches of Government; Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. The separation of powers between these 3 branches provides for checks and balances.

In Britain

http://www.britannia.com/gov/gov8.html



It appears that your Judicial system is much like ours

Could it be that you know as little about the freedoms you have lost as you do about the structure of either your government or ours?

Regards

George Clay

I thought that might be where you were going wrong.
The Crown is not the government. Oh that's right... you don't have the Crown over there. Well, that isn't entirely true, the Canadians do.
Maybe 4th of July was not such a good idea after all. =))

Robin I'm sure you are joking about the 4th of July not being such a good idea? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your comment. :-\ The 4th HAD to happen so that the Gospel of Jesus Christ could be restored in a country free of tyranny and where people had freedom of religion. It could not have happened ANY other way. Having said that I'm sure our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves to see what our country is slowing turning into. The whole thing regarding baby Gard is just plain sad. I can't imagine what the parents are going through.

YES, u did misunderstand and YES, baby G.'s case is plain sad...so ur totally right!!! :ymhug:

[David13]

I can't understand how in the world anyone does not understand that the court, an official court of the land wherein the court lies, exists, is venued, is a part, an agency, an arm, a branch, a division of ... THE GOVERNMENT.
The English courts arose from ... THE KINGS COURT, of which the king was the original decider in that court, and then ultimately delegated that authority to 'lesser subordinates'. Judges.
Its comical the contortions some people with go to with regard to that.
Here, Amtrak is part of the government. It's owned lock, stock and barrel by the government.
But if you mention that anywhere near the trains, you will hear, "Oh!, but they are an independent agency!" As if that makes the slightest hoot of a difference.
Tell me, when, for their entire life they have shortages of now a billion or more dollars a year, does the government give them that money, make up their shortfall, IF THEY ARE NOT THE GOVERNMENT?
Does the government make up my business shortages?
dc

I can't understand why you guys can't get your heads around this.
The Crown is the ultimate authority in this country. The government is an agency of the Crown and is answerable to it. The judiciary is an agency of the Crown and is answerable to it.
But the judiciary is not answerable to the government, nor the government to the judiciary.

In terms of finance, the Crown is absolutely loaded. The government isn't, and has to raise money from taxation and/or borrowing. But the Crown is independently wealthy beyond measure. For example, every piece of real estate in this kingdom is ultimately owned by the Crown. Every house, every field, every road, factory, stadium, tree, farm, port, beach, mountain and valley is owned by the Crown.
Nice work if you can get it!

The crown is the ultimate authority???!!!
So that means the crown can overrule Parliament? Oh, really, when did that last happen?

And if you think the crown can overrule Parliament, why would you not think the crown could not overrule the court?

You are thinking of the crown of about, what, 500 years ago or so?
dc

[OCDMOM]

OCDMOM could you please give reference with regards which american hospital and doctor offered to taje care of the baby for free? And if you could provide information on the treatment they offered that would be even better x

Here is the link. http://canadafreepress.com/article/unsp ... -.-.-if-an
Of course I only read the headline.

[Robin Hood]

I can't understand how in the world anyone does not understand that the court, an official court of the land wherein the court lies, exists, is venued, is a part, an agency, an arm, a branch, a division of ... THE GOVERNMENT.
The English courts arose from ... THE KINGS COURT, of which the king was the original decider in that court, and then ultimately delegated that authority to 'lesser subordinates'. Judges.
Its comical the contortions some people with go to with regard to that.
Here, Amtrak is part of the government. It's owned lock, stock and barrel by the government.
But if you mention that anywhere near the trains, you will hear, "Oh!, but they are an independent agency!" As if that makes the slightest hoot of a difference.
Tell me, when, for their entire life they have shortages of now a billion or more dollars a year, does the government give them that money, make up their shortfall, IF THEY ARE NOT THE GOVERNMENT?
Does the government make up my business shortages?
dc

I can't understand why you guys can't get your heads around this.
The Crown is the ultimate authority in this country. The government is an agency of the Crown and is answerable to it. The judiciary is an agency of the Crown and is answerable to it.
But the judiciary is not answerable to the government, nor the government to the judiciary.

In terms of finance, the Crown is absolutely loaded. The government isn't, and has to raise money from taxation and/or borrowing. But the Crown is independently wealthy beyond measure. For example, every piece of real estate in this kingdom is ultimately owned by the Crown. Every house, every field, every road, factory, stadium, tree, farm, port, beach, mountain and valley is owned by the Crown.
Nice work if you can get it!

The crown is the ultimate authority???!!!
So that means the crown can overrule Parliament? Oh, really, when did that last happen?

And if you think the crown can overrule Parliament, why would you not think the crown could not overrule the court?

You are thinking of the crown of about, what, 500 years ago or so?
dc

No I'm not.
As an example, when parliament is dissolved prior to an election, as happened recently, there were no MP's and therefore no parliament for several weeks. But the country still functioned and there was still a government. Why? Because the executive (government) is appointed by the Crown. So we had a Prime Minister and other ministers running the government and the country who were not even members of parliament!

When the PM called the election she had to go to the Queen for permission to dissolve parliament. Parliament cannot dissolve itself. And after the election was over the PM had to go to the Queen for permission to form a government and to recall parliament.

Our ambassadors in foreign lands represent the Queen, not the British government.

There is an illusion that paliament is the ultimate authority, but it isn't actually true.
Some functions of the monarch seem ceremonial, but in reality the truth is that all power and authority rests with the Crown and is devolved to other bodies at the Crown's discretion.

As I said previously, the Crown owns everything. There are even some who claim the Crown owns the USA!

[David13]

...

As I said previously, the Crown owns everything. There are even some who claim the Crown owns the USA!

I guess that certainly shows me that what you say is pure wackiness.
So then they should blame the Queen for this medical issue gone wrong, rather than the health service, the court, or the government, or all of the above.
dc

[Robin Hood]

...

As I said previously, the Crown owns everything. There are even some who claim the Crown owns the USA!

I guess that certainly shows me that what you say is pure wackiness.
So then they should blame the Queen for this medical issue gone wrong, rather than the health service, the court, or the government, or all of the above.
dc

Now that is wacky.
Clearly, you haven't been following the thread.

[Teancum]

I can't understand how in the world anyone does not understand that the court, an official court of the land wherein the court lies, exists, is venued, is a part, an agency, an arm, a branch, a division of ... THE GOVERNMENT.
The English courts arose from ... THE KINGS COURT, of which the king was the original decider in that court, and then ultimately delegated that authority to 'lesser subordinates'. Judges.
Its comical the contortions some people with go to with regard to that.
Here, Amtrak is part of the government. It's owned lock, stock and barrel by the government.
But if you mention that anywhere near the trains, you will hear, "Oh!, but they are an independent agency!" As if that makes the slightest hoot of a difference.
Tell me, when, for their entire life they have shortages of now a billion or more dollars a year, does the government give them that money, make up their shortfall, IF THEY ARE NOT THE GOVERNMENT?
Does the government make up my business shortages?
dc

I can't understand why you guys can't get your heads around this.
The Crown is the ultimate authority in this country. The government is an agency of the Crown and is answerable to it. The judiciary is an agency of the Crown and is answerable to it.
But the judiciary is not answerable to the government, nor the government to the judiciary.

In terms of finance, the Crown is absolutely loaded. The government isn't, and has to raise money from taxation and/or borrowing. But the Crown is independently wealthy beyond measure. For example, every piece of real estate in this kingdom is ultimately owned by the Crown. Every house, every field, every road, factory, stadium, tree, farm, port, beach, mountain and valley is owned by the Crown.
Nice work if you can get it!

I think the problem arises with the use of terminology. Here in the USA Google gives this response for "govern" as in government.

gov·ern
ˈɡəvərn/
verb
verb: govern; 3rd person present: governs; past tense: governed; past participle: governed; gerund or present participle: governing

1.
conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).
"he was incapable of governing the country"
synonyms: rule, preside over, reign over, control, be in charge of, command, lead, dominate;

It is quite clear that there is something that governs your country. You call it the Crown, but whatever the term you use, it is still a form of government or rather system of control of the people. Which is exactly what George is saying. If the people control the people, as is supposed to happen with the USA, then they are the government. If the crown controls the people or the country, then they/it are the government. So you say the crown has the ultimate authority in your country, which makes it the government (whether or not there is a sub body called "the government" under that). But that is not George's point. His point is the amount of force or control is excessive and the parents should have that power, not some governing body, whether that body be the crown, doctors, courts, scientific experts, or a group of homeless people under a bridge.

[Robin Hood]

I can't understand how in the world anyone does not understand that the court, an official court of the land wherein the court lies, exists, is venued, is a part, an agency, an arm, a branch, a division of ... THE GOVERNMENT.
The English courts arose from ... THE KINGS COURT, of which the king was the original decider in that court, and then ultimately delegated that authority to 'lesser subordinates'. Judges.
Its comical the contortions some people with go to with regard to that.
Here, Amtrak is part of the government. It's owned lock, stock and barrel by the government.
But if you mention that anywhere near the trains, you will hear, "Oh!, but they are an independent agency!" As if that makes the slightest hoot of a difference.
Tell me, when, for their entire life they have shortages of now a billion or more dollars a year, does the government give them that money, make up their shortfall, IF THEY ARE NOT THE GOVERNMENT?
Does the government make up my business shortages?
dc

I can't understand why you guys can't get your heads around this.
The Crown is the ultimate authority in this country. The government is an agency of the Crown and is answerable to it. The judiciary is an agency of the Crown and is answerable to it.
But the judiciary is not answerable to the government, nor the government to the judiciary.

In terms of finance, the Crown is absolutely loaded. The government isn't, and has to raise money from taxation and/or borrowing. But the Crown is independently wealthy beyond measure. For example, every piece of real estate in this kingdom is ultimately owned by the Crown. Every house, every field, every road, factory, stadium, tree, farm, port, beach, mountain and valley is owned by the Crown.
Nice work if you can get it!

I think the problem arises with the use of terminology. Here in the USA Google gives this response for "govern" as in government.

gov·ern
ˈɡəvərn/
verb
verb: govern; 3rd person present: governs; past tense: governed; past participle: governed; gerund or present participle: governing

1.
conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).
"he was incapable of governing the country"
synonyms: rule, preside over, reign over, control, be in charge of, command, lead, dominate;

It is quite clear that there is something that governs your country. You call it the Crown, but whatever the term you use, it is still a form of government or rather system of control of the people. Which is exactly what George is saying. If the people control the people, as is supposed to happen with the USA, then they are the government. If the crown controls the people or the country, then they/it are the government. So you say the crown has the ultimate authority in your country, which makes it the government (whether or not there is a sub body called "the government" under that). But that is not George's point. His point is the amount of force or control is excessive and the parents should have that power, not some governing body, whether that body be the crown, doctors, courts, scientific experts, or a group of homeless people under a bridge.

Ok, I see where you're coming from.
However, in fact we have a government which governs the country, makes the laws etc. But above the government we have the Crown. The Crown does not govern, the government does that. The Crown is aloof from government. It is permanent, whereas governments can and do change.
Think of your near neighbour Canada. Canada has a national parliament, elected MP's, a Prime Minister, various government departments and ministries, ambassadors, armed forces etc. Canada enters into treaties with foreign nations, fights wars, and so on. It's government governs, no question. And yet, beyond the Canadian government, just as in England, lurks the Crown.
Surely you're not going to argue that the Crown is the Canadian government or that the Canadian government is the Crown?

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

Ok, I see where you're coming from.
However, in fact we have a government which governs the country, makes the laws etc. But above the government we have the Crown. The Crown does not govern, the government does that. The Crown is aloof from government. It is permanent, whereas governments can and do change.
Think of your near neighbour Canada. Canada has a national parliament, elected MP's, a Prime Minister, various government departments and ministries, ambassadors, armed forces etc. Canada enters into treaties with foreign nations, fights wars, and so on. It's government governs, no question. And yet, beyond the Canadian government, just as in England, lurks the Crown.
Surely you're not going to argue that the Crown is the Canadian government or that the Canadian government is the Crown?

I must admit that I found that spending a day machining Steam engine parts and conversing with my friend a lot more interesting than a lot of the exchange here. However, while I suppose maybe this is an American vs. British thing, I see nothing that changes my first observation. All of this is crown vs government thing is a distinction without a difference.

The sad thing is that it is not simply a semantic thing in which we can all have fun jousting Jots and tittles about what significant distinction there may or may not be between a "crown" and a "government". The original point was that you have not only given up so many of your freedoms to "Big Brother" who ever he may be, but when we engage in a discussion about this it, devolves, not into any rationale about how we so easily and happily exchange our freedoms to someone or something if they would take care of us, but onto a discussion of crown vs government.

And that is the sad thing that I have learned from this discussion.

1) Brits seem to defend to the hilt what NHS and "big Brother" do, no matter how blatantly they forcibly take away basic human freedom, because

a) its free, so nobody has to worry about either taking responsibility for their own health care costs or decisions


b) it is run by certified "experts", who we know will make better decisions for us than we will for ourselves

2) When presenting this as a "loss of freedom" and responsibility issue, You Brits seem to act like a "deer in the headlights", and not even be able to have a coherent discussion, so it devolves into a silly technocrat discussion of the jots and tittles of a difference between the term "Crown" and "government" as to who is the totalitarian who has taken your freedom, rather than even a recognition of this loss.

I guess I should thank you for enlightening me, however sad it is. It doesn't do much to encourage me that there is much left of the British sense of individual rights that used to exist and became a pillar in the foundation of our own government and society. This seems to have become completely lost. Unfortunately, we are probably, too quickly following you down the same rabbit hole.

Regards,

George Clay

[Sunain]

Ok, I see where you're coming from.
However, in fact we have a government which governs the country, makes the laws etc. But above the government we have the Crown. The Crown does not govern, the government does that. The Crown is aloof from government. It is permanent, whereas governments can and do change.
Think of your near neighbour Canada. Canada has a national parliament, elected MP's, a Prime Minister, various government departments and ministries, ambassadors, armed forces etc. Canada enters into treaties with foreign nations, fights wars, and so on. It's government governs, no question. And yet, beyond the Canadian government, just as in England, lurks the Crown.
Surely you're not going to argue that the Crown is the Canadian government or that the Canadian government is the Crown?

It's unfortunate that the BHS fought against the parents wishes. For centuries, the guardians of the person that was sick were the ones that made the final decisions, not the doctors. Parents want to try anything to save their children and at the heart of this debate is the BHS saying they won't allow them to do that. Did they even think to factor in the parents who would have to know for the rest of their lives that there was an option that was available but was forceably denied?! Is that not cruel and unnecessary punishment for the parents for the rest of their lives?!

The Canadian Health Care system isn't perfect either. Like this issue with the parents wanting treatment in the USA, it's even more common here for Canadians to seek treatment in the USA albeit for non-threatening issues. Hernia and knee surgeries are quite common for Canadians on the waiting list to go to the USA to get it done faster, if they are willing to pay.

More than 52,000 Canadians travelled abroad for health care last year, study finds

In 2014, 52,513 Canadians travelled beyond our borders to seek medical treatment, compared with 41,838 in 2013

The number of Canadian patients who travelled abroad in 2014 to receive non-emergency medical treatment increased 25% from 2013, according to a study conducted by the Fraser Institute, a Canadian independent research and education organization.

In 2014, 52,513 Canadians travelled beyond our borders to seek medical treatment, compared with 41,838 in 2013. The numbers suggest that the Canadian health care system could not comply with the needs and demands of a substantial number of Canadian patients, according to the study.

Last year, trying to explain how Canada’s system works to American friends, I told them that the Canadian single-payer system was great at saving your life from a conventional illness or injury. The flip side of that, though, is that if you’re not quite in danger of death, you can be in for a rough ride. Outside of a few specific areas targeted for aggressive wait time reductions — things like knee and hip replacements, MRIs, cataract surgery and the like — you can be pretty much screwed if you need a test or procedure for anything less than a life-threatening condition. The system’s limited resources will always, naturally, go to those most in need. So you’ll wait.

The percentage of Canadian patients who travelled abroad to receive non-emergency medical care was 1.1 per cent, an increase compared to 0.9 per cent in 2013.

Only 1% of Canadians went for emergency procedures in the USA. I know from experience, that any emergencies in Canada are given the utmost priority and thankfully those emergencies won't bankrupt any Canadian.

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.

There are many services that Canada and the UK provide as part of their health care plans though that are against the teachings of the church, for instance Quebec giving out abortion pills for free starting this year. Abortion surgeries have been a free part of the Canadian Health Care system for years as well and medically assisted dying "Euthanasia" became legal as of June 2016.

[JohnnyL]

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.

[gclayjr]

Sunian,

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.

This is how socialists twist what should be a humanitarian idea into slavery. Nobody is saying that the poor should be denied medical help. The problem with both the Canadian and the British system is that in the name of "Helping the poor", they take control of everybody's medical treatment. Even here in the United States, we have Medicaid for the poor, and all emergency rooms must treat anybody that shows up. This is quite imperfect, and needs improvement, but the basic concept is right. Those who can afford to take care of themselves do, and aid is provided only to those who are unable to provide for themselves.

I think that we have completely lost the idea of Medical insurance. Insurance is to provide a pool for common coverage for any unexpected disaster that may destroy one's savings, or that one might be unable to pay for. It shouldn't cover, things which people can control or which are not excessively expensive. I think that those who can afford it, should pay for doctor visits, routine medicine and shots. Insurance should be only to cover expensive medical emergencies, just like homeowners insurance covers fire, flood etc, but not repainting your bedroom.

Regards,

George Clay

[Sunain]

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.

[gclayjr]

Suntan,

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.

If JohnnyL can afford to fix his own car, then he should, I shouldn't have to pay for it. You continue to promote the Socialist lie that it is necessary to control and pay for everybody's health care in order to make sure the poor are cared for!

Regards,

George Clay

[Sunain]

Suntan,

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.

If JohnnyL can afford to fix his own car, then he should, I shouldn't have to pay for it. You continue to promote the Socialist lie that it is necessary to control and pay for everybody's health care in order to make sure the poor are cared for!

Regards,

George Clay

You cannot compare health and well-being to a broken car. That's not the issue. One is a life issue, the other is a need/want issue. When/if countries start spouting that we have to pay for your house repairs or your broken car, then yes, I will agree with you that the socialist agenda has gone too far.

I do acknowledge that Canada's socialist agenda has gone too far in some aspects and that we do need to acknowledge what the prophets and apostles have taught about socialism but generally health care shouldn't one of those issues we should be debating. For instance, when we allow thousands of Muslim refugees into our country and set them up in hotels and give them a billion of our tax dollars, that's socialism gone way overboard. I agree with you guys there that the state is taking money and using it for unrighteous reasons.

When a parents agency to choose treatment for their children is overridden by the state isn't even a universal health socialist issue, it's gone way past that into totalitarianism.

But where is your guys Christlike compassion to care for the sick, afflicted and needy?

The fact that the United States lets anyone suffer or die because they didn't get or couldn't afford adequate health care is plain and simply: Sinful.

When you conflict the misguided "all socialism is bad" agenda of the United States with the well-being of people, then there is the root of the issue. Remember, the Savior also confirmed Canada as part of the promised land not just the United States. The Universal Health Care systems of Canada and the United Kingdom have proven to be more fair than the capitalist American system. People in Canada and the UK are all working and paying their taxes so they can use these health services. You guys make it seem like people in our countries are all freeloading socialists that are taking from the rich and getting services for nothing, that's not the case (well maybe except for Robin Hood here on the forums :)) ). Only the people in poverty get the health care services for free because they don't have any money to pay but then they also have a lot more issues and need our help so that they can become self-sufficient and contributing members of society.

Do you pay taxes? Do you believe that taxes are necessary to run a government and a country? Well that's all we do for our Universal Health Care system in Canada. A percentage of your income is paid for health care. The more you make, the higher the premium is. That is a fair and just system. Just like with taxes, the more you make, the more you pay in taxes. It benefits all that need it, just like all other government services. Thankfully I've barely had to use the healthcare system in Canada in my lifetime. Do I regret having to pay for the system, absolutely not because I know someone else is benefiting from my contribution for them to get better. I look at it the same way as paying fast offerings to the church.

[dafty]

Suntan,

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.

If JohnnyL can afford to fix his own car, then he should, I shouldn't have to pay for it. You continue to promote the Socialist lie that it is necessary to control and pay for everybody's health care in order to make sure the poor are cared for!

Regards,

George Clay

You cannot compare health and well-being to a broken car. That's not the issue. One is a life issue, the other is a need/want issue. When/if countries start spouting that we have to pay for your house repairs or your broken car, then yes, I will agree with you that the socialist agenda has gone too far.

I do acknowledge that Canada's socialist agenda has gone too far in some aspects and that we do need to acknowledge what the prophets and apostles have taught about socialism but generally health care shouldn't one of those issues we should be debating. For instance, when we allow thousands of Muslim refugees into our country and set them up in hotels and give them a billion of our tax dollars, that's socialism gone way overboard. I agree with you guys there that the state is taking money and using it for unrighteous reasons.

When a parents agency to choose treatment for their children is overridden by the state isn't even a universal health socialist issue, it's gone way past that into totalitarianism.

But where is your guys Christlike compassion to care for the sick, afflicted and needy?

The fact that the United States lets anyone suffer or die because they didn't get or couldn't afford adequate health care is plain and simply: Sinful.

When you conflict the misguided "all socialism is bad" agenda of the United States with the well-being of people, then there is the root of the issue. Remember, the Savior also confirmed Canada as part of the promised land not just the United States. The Universal Health Care systems of Canada and the United Kingdom have proven to be more fair than the capitalist American system. People in Canada and the UK are all working and paying their taxes so they can use these health services. You guys make it seem like people in our countries are all freeloading socialists that are taking from the rich and getting services for nothing, that's not the case (well maybe except for Robin Hood here on the forums :)) ). Only the people in poverty get the health care services for free because they don't have any money to pay but then they also have a lot more issues and need our help so that they can become self-sufficient and contributing members of society.

Do you pay taxes? Do you believe that taxes are necessary to run a government and a country? Well that's all we do for our Universal Health Care system in Canada. A percentage of your income is paid for health care. The more you make, the higher the premium is. That is a fair and just system. Just like with taxes, the more you make, the more you pay in taxes. It benefits all that need it, just like all other government services. Thankfully I've barely had to use the healthcare system in Canada in my lifetime. Do I regret having to pay for the system, absolutely not because I know someone else is benefiting from my contribution for them to get better. I look at it the same way as paying fast offerings to the church.

Only one comment i will make on , otherwise excellent post of yours. U wrote:

When a parents agency to choose treatment for their children is overridden by the state isn't even a universal health socialist issue, it's gone way past that into totalitarianism.

. I honestly dont understand why its so hard to understand that what the court did in case of baby G. was reasonable and appropriate? A day after we took A levels, my friend went for a bike ride,got hit by a lorry and got paralised waist down. Long story short, first thing his grieving parents did was to find some doctor in russia that offered EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT for a substantial sum of money without guarantee of success,but primarily without guarantee that the treatment wouldnt cause more harm and additional suffering. Would you let them parents take that boy to russia and treat him like a labrat, knowing very well theres no cure for severed spinal cord? I wouldnt(well, at that time I was so traumatised and naive, that I would have :ymblushing: )!!! I would hope that some reasonable person/member of their family will stop them and if they dont succeed maybe social services or even police should be involved to objectively assess the case and make the decision for them, as theyre unable to think straight themselves.Did not king Salomon make decision for the citizens? How is that different? PS. If the crowns decision was view to be wrong by UK citizens that look at the case objectively, I guarantee you we would have protests after protests and the case would have been reviewed again, which coincidently has been the case (not due to UK citizens but Pope and Trump ).AND REMEMBER, WE ARE NOT TALKING HERE ABOUT PARENTS FREEDOM TO CHOOSE SCHOOLING FOR THEIR CHILDREN,BUT HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT!!!

[dafty]

To illustrate my point a little further, I shall use the following example, that to some may seem extreme, yet It could easily happen in my life.
As I mentioned before, my boy is on autistic spectrum. Now, there is NO recognized cure for it. NHS offers some treatments(in which he participates) to improve his life(things like speech,concentration etc.).In US theres an ABA therapy, that NHS does not approve and will not finance. However, they do not stop you from financing it and letting you child participate in it, which coincidently my son does(my xwife is trying to heal him so she insists on any treatment...). Now, to my main point. Couple of months back, a group of Hungarian immigrants, started to offer a treatment for autism(TRUE STORY!!!). They would take a subject under their wings and...BEAT THE AUTISM OUT OF HIM/HER!!!! Now according to some of you, it would be evil of NHS and court/government to step in and prevent any potential parent from taking his/her child to Budapest and have the child undergo this new intense experimental treatment...
...I will let you make you own minds up

[gclayjr]

dafty,

Would you let them parents take that boy to russia and treat him like a labrat, knowing very well theres no cure for severed spinal cord? I wouldnt

I wouldn't take that choice away from the parents... that is the point. You've sold your soul for a bowl of porridge.

http://www.heartteam.com/poole-story.php

I'm sure that Colin Poole is ok with being a lab rat.

Describing the procedure later, Dr. Elder noted that “this was the first time we ever used two AngioVacs at once with a patient ... and it may very well be the first time that approach has ever been used in treating a pulmonary embolism.

“But the outcome was very encouraging, and I do think that procedure illustrates why the CVI year after year is doing more of these complex cardiovascular cases than any other medical center in Michigan.”

According to Dr. Theodore L. Schreiber, the President of the new DMC Heart Hospital (where the CVI is now housed), Colin Poole’s successful outcome is “a terrific example of how the Heart Hospital has the high-tech resources, the expertise, the personnel and the will to help cardiac patients who are struggling with even the most difficult and challenging cardiac or circulatory issues.

2 Nephi 28:21

21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

or maybe

21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Great Britain; yea, Great Britain prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

Regards,

George Clay