The Christian life is a personal intimate relationship between you and Christ. This life begins in faith (Ephesians 2:8-9) and can only be lived by faith.

Why is money a consideration over compassion in a christian society?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why is money a consideration over compassion in a christian society?

    We live in a Christian society every day we are reminded of the virtues of Jesus Christ. It's difficult to understand that in a Christian society we are able to let people die because they don't have money to pay for the intervention that would probably save their lives. I have seen people turned away from hospitals, (I can testify that this has happened in my country) when they are in a critical medical crisis which could result in their death because they don't have to required fee for their treatment. I guess that in this instance thirty pieces of silver is more valuable than life and the examples of Jesus.

  • #2
    Originally posted by explorerx7 View Post
    We live in a Christian society every day we are reminded of the virtues of Jesus Christ. It's difficult to understand that in a Christian society we are able to let people die because they don't have money to pay for the intervention that would probably save their lives. I have seen people turned away from hospitals, (I can testify that this has happened in my country) when they are in a critical medical crisis which could result in their death because they don't have to required fee for their treatment. I guess that in this instance thirty pieces of silver is more valuable than life and the examples of Jesus.
    We're (U.S.) far from a Christian society,

    I don't think hospitals can turn people away here in the U.S. But, the more the U.S. taxes the citizens the less in charity they have to give away. That's one of the beefs I have. I give to charity, however, I don't like my money going to the government to do what I should do. And I do not agree with every person they give my money to. For example, Planned Parenthood, the leader in abortion.

    Personally, I don't get free health care for everyone. Nobody here can be turned away from hospitals. Though they are financially obligated or accountable for the bills. Free health care passes that accountability off on other people. I just don't get that.

    God bless,
    William
    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by William View Post
      Personally, I don't get free health care for everyone. Nobody here can be turned away from hospitals. Though they are financially obligated or accountable for the bills. Free health care passes that accountability off on other people. I just don't get that.
      Over here the media narrative is full of horror stories of US citizens unable to get healthcare or treatment because they don't have funds or don't want to bankrupt their families. It's a matter of point of view.

      There is one misapprehension in your post: the NHS is not "free healthcare". Every resident of the UK pays into National insurance, which is used to fund it. You can take payment breaks for long term sickness, which I have had to do (and just had to sort out the bill for mine for the next tax year. Ouch.), but you still have to make it up or it is taken out of things like your pension. It works like normal insurance: I paid mine for years when I wasn't sick and it was used to pay for those who were. When I was ill, I took a payment break, and other people's payments paid for my treatment. It is closer to collective insurance than free. The real advantage is that medication is cheaper over here because if the drug companies overcharge they lose custom from an entire country or can end up in government trouble (see below) which saves a lot of money in treatment.
      There are a number of reasons why many of the same brand name prescription drugs sold in Canada are often significantly less expensive than those found in the United States.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by ChatterBox View Post
        Over here the media narrative is full of horror stories of US citizens unable to get healthcare or treatment because they don't have funds or don't want to bankrupt their families. It's a matter of point of view.

        There is one misapprehension in your post: the NHS is not "free healthcare". Every resident of the UK pays into National insurance, which is used to fund it. You can take payment breaks for long term sickness, which I have had to do (and just had to sort out the bill for mine for the next tax year. Ouch.), but you still have to make it up or it is taken out of things like your pension. It works like normal insurance: I paid mine for years when I wasn't sick and it was used to pay for those who were. When I was ill, I took a payment break, and other people's payments paid for my treatment. It is closer to collective insurance than free. The real advantage is that medication is cheaper over here because if the drug companies overcharge they lose custom from an entire country or can end up in government trouble (see below) which saves a lot of money in treatment.
        If I could only share the stories I hear every day. My wife works in the financial aid department in an Oncology medical foundation. You'd be surprised how many people elect to pay the penalty and not purchase health care insurance. In turn they pass it off to the tax payer.

        A bankruptcy is a right (only so many can be claimed in a period of time). If a person doesn't pay their financial obligations then they should be penalized, the bill shouldn't be pushed off onto other people. Charity, there are many charity foundations that have far more stringent guidelines than the government. They look at "how much" a person makes and determines whether or not they can afford to buy insurance, and reject them if they could but made poor decisions not to.

        Last week my wife shared with me a story about John Doe that had no insurance. John Doe makes 30 thousand a month and decided not to purchase insurance. He'd rather pay a couple of thousand dollars a year in penalty. He was diagnosed as having Cancer unexpectedly. What do people think insurance is? You don't wait until after you have a diagnosis and then rely on no prior conditions set by law! How do you feel about paying the medical bills for someone that makes 30 grand a month. True story...... we did.

        Chatterbox, say you were on the beach enjoying a nice sandwich you packed for yourself. And John Doe walks up and demands your sandwich. Maybe you say no, and then comes Mr POTUS on his horse and puts a gun to your head demanding that you give your sandwich to John Doe. The compulsion strips the virtue out of the transaction. You did not give to charity. And besides that and to my case, perhaps John Doe feels like he is entitled to more than your sandwich now, maybe two more, and your softdrink. Not to mention Mr POTUS never actually gave his own sandwich, but gave your sandwich to John Doe. Maybe he'll give the shirt off your back and not his! Wow, so charitable!

        God bless,
        William
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by William View Post
          Last week my wife shared with me a story about John Doe that had no insurance. John Doe makes 30 thousand a month and decided not to purchase insurance. He'd rather pay a couple of thousand dollars a year in penalty. He was diagnosed as having Cancer unexpectedly. What do people think insurance is? You don't wait until after you have a diagnosis and then rely on no prior conditions set by law! How do you feel about paying the medical bills for someone that makes 30 grand a month. True story...... we did.
          Absolutely fine, because as I pointed out there is no gun to anyone's head. When I was healthy my NI payments almost certainly covered the treatment of people better off than me, and now I am ill their payments cover mine. They are perfectly free to opt out of NI and get their own private insurance (which works the same way as US healthcare but is cheaper as they benefit from the NHS negotiated prices). Most people who hold that private insurance still pay their NI even though they are never going to use it, because a healthy population and people not putting off seeing the doctor because of cost benefits them. View it more as church tithing: you don't have to give, but giving benefits everyone. Sometimes the people who put in are not the people who take out, and sometimes they eventually are.

          I think there's also a cost difference: NI costs about £600 a year at the basic level of opt-in and that covers everything, including chronic conditions. Compared to the prices I have heard for US insurance that's incredibly affordable.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Yes this is one big serious issue here in India as well. Many people die everyday only because of the lack of money that is needed for medical support. No law has been created to prevent this from happening.

            Sadly the condition of all the Government hospitals is really horrible and the private ones are above the reach of a common man. I think money is really important if one wants to fight a diseased condition.
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by explorerx7 View Post
              We live in a Christian society every day we are reminded of the virtues of Jesus Christ. It's difficult to understand that in a Christian society we are able to let people die because they don't have money to pay for the intervention that would probably save their lives. I have seen people turned away from hospitals, (I can testify that this has happened in my country) when they are in a critical medical crisis which could result in their death because they don't have to required fee for their treatment. I guess that in this instance thirty pieces of silver is more valuable than life and the examples of Jesus.
              I'm not sure what Christian society you are referring to.

              I feel for people who can't afford to meet their needs, truly. You also have to look at it from the other side though. A hospital isn't a charity. They can't afford to treat everyone for free, or they will close down. Then, there won't be a hospital at all.

              Here in the US they aren't supposed to turn away anyone with a life-threatening emergency, but they will most likely just stabilize the person and move them along.

              There are programs available for the needy, including Christian clinics that off free health care. There are also some good charities out there that try to help. I would prefer to donate to these than to have my money taken to give to programs that I don't agree with.
              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by thisnthat View Post
                I would prefer to donate to these than to have my money taken to give to programs that I don't agree with.
                Same here. Free health care contributes to the death rate of the unborn. I'd be "more willing" to pay in a free health care system that did not fund the murder of the unborn. I am willing to bet that the more accessible and less expensive abortion is, the higher the abortion rate.

                God bless,
                William
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by William View Post

                  Same here. Free health care contributes to the death rate of the unborn. I'd be "more willing" to pay in a free health care system that did not fund the murder of the unborn. I am willing to bet that the more accessible and less expensive abortion is, the higher the abortion rate.

                  God bless,
                  William
                  Then I take it you also don't donate to overseas and famine relief efforts as a fair amount of that gets diverted to weapons used to commit systematic murder. Live Aid for example was notorious for this, as the famine wasn't natural and the money helped keep the person responsible in power and buy him weapons.

                  I take the view that if I give money to help people, and some of it is used in a way I don't like, I can at least know that others were saved by it. The alternative is to give nothing at all, and that is not charitable.

                  Live Aid forced the world to confront the Ethiopian famine and raised more than £50m. But as Bob Geldof prepares his Live 8 reprise, aid expert David Rieff argues that guilt-stricken donations helped fund a brutal resettlement programme that may have killed up to 100,000.
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ChatterBox View Post
                    I take the view that if I give money to help people, and some of it is used in a way I don't like, I can at least know that others were saved by it. The alternative is to give nothing at all, and that is not charitable.
                    I think there is another alternative. Find another source to give your donations. There is often more than one charity per cause. If you can find one that uses the money in ways that you approve of then it's all good.

                    If there is only one way to donate, and I don't agree with it, I'm not going to donate. I guess I'll just have to pray more and donate elsewhere. There is always someone that could use the help.
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ChatterBox View Post
                      Then I take it you also don't donate to overseas and famine relief efforts as a fair amount of that gets diverted to weapons used to commit systematic murder.
                      Seems we differ as to what murder and killing is. I expect my taxes to go overseas and actively combat evil. However, I do not consider taxes charity, and that's why I give to charity which is separate from taxes and my tithe. For example, in the 1990s Somalia drug lords were using starvation against the people. They were blocking U.N. relief efforts. I expect taxes to go and neutralize that kinda threat which prevented food shipments from reaching starving people.

                      God bless,
                      William


                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        This topic is a two edged sword, as one lays claim to a better way of dealing with healthcare and another to the direction that charity should go and just how to manage them both at a affordable level. Should everyone have healthcare? I believe everyone should have access to healthcare and each person should make an honest attempt to cover their costs. Should everyone buy health insurance? Yes, if they can afford to do so which is often the very thing that keeps some people from the very thing they need. I have had insurance and then gone though periods in my life without health insurance do to lack of enough income, but I always made a attempt to pay off my bills even if it took years at $10 a month. Accountability is sorely needed and there is no such thing as free healthcare. Someone is paying the bills through tax payer dollars. Even in Canada, the people pay for their heath care system through higher taxes and services, and goods.

                        Charity, as the older folks used to say begins at home. If each person did an act of kindness everyday or paid it forward, there would be much less starvation and loss of life, and homelessness. The money in the offering plates at churches used to do this needy service, providing access to healthcare and housing the homeless and feeding and clothing the poor. Many organizations provided food and clothing to the needy before the government stepped in. Many churches still send missionaries around the world to spread the good news and help families with food, clothing and shelter. But as more and more of these common place charities were replaced by the government monies, these places often found other ways to spend their donated money. Bigger and fancier churches and a change in some hearts, and often many church's have had to close their doors do to lack of funds or attendance.

                        Just some random thoughts throw out there. What do you think is the best approach to both of these topic's??

                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          I want to clarify my previous post. If I'm certain that wrongdoing is occurring, if there is evidence of it, I'll avoid donating.

                          If I don't know it for a fact then I have donated in some cases, It's like giving money to someone on the street when you don't know what they'll do with the money. I pray that the gift will be blessed and use appropriately, but I can't control what the person will do with it once I've given it to them.

                          This is sometimes the case with relief efforts and charity organizations as well. If there is proof of wrongdoing though, I try to steer clear.
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Not just in Christian societies, but every where from India, predominantly a Hindu country, to Indonesia, the largest Muslim country, money is the main consideration over compassion. You can remain unbeliever yet live a good life if you have money. However, you cannot live a good life just by being a believer with no money. You need money to live life, thus money takes the center stage.
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              Yes, money has become the main thing. The U.S. started out as a 'Christian' nation. But we're not really a Christian society any more.

                              The example of the person on the beach with their sandwich. It's 'his' sandwich, no one has any right taking it away from him. If the person wants to share half the sandwich that's his choice. But when the POTUS comes up and demands that the sandwich be shared, That's not right. It's actually socialism. The 'demander' Does have the right to go get his own sandwich. If he can't afford it, well. .... he might get hungry. If there's a food pantry around, that could be a temporary help. But even That food comes from somewhere. It Is free and there will probably always be people who are hungry / no job, no family around to help. And Maybe the person needing the food Could be hired to sweep a floor or wash a window in order to get the food he needs.

                              Emergency treatment is Usually available, but, many times, only to sustain life.

                              There are no easy answers to health care. But the concept of adequate health care being available to Everyone isn't reasonable. The person making a huge income shouldn't be having to pay - indirectly - for the homeless person.
                              Sometimes the homeless person Does get sick and Does die on the street or in the ER. And sometimes the person with the huge income gets sick and dies -- because money can't buy good health.

                              I can love the whole neighborhood, but that won't pay my rent or groceries.
                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap