Ship of Fools: What's so fatuous about hospitals?

Thread: What's so fatuous about hospitals? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023398

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

On one of his anti-liberal rants, Ender's Shadow asserted that the argument that the early Church saw miraculous healings and so on in order to inspire subsequent generations to build hospitals is a 'fatuous' one.

I've heard this said to, and whilst I think it is something of a platitude, I can't see why it's such a big issue nor what Ender's Shadow would put up in its place.

Is he saying that we should dismantle all hospitals and health-care and hence develop a stronger expectation that God will heal people miraculously in response to prayer?

This is the kind of attitude that leads people to withhold medicine from their own children because they believe that God is going to heal them.

I know what Ender's Shadow is trying to say, that this kind of liberal thing is used as an 'excuse' not to 'prevail with God through believing prayer' and see multitudes of people healed and converted and so on.

But is this a legitimate objection? There must be around what, a million or so people here in the UK who are involved with churches which believe that God heals people as part and parcel of the presentation of the Gospel. I don't see many A&E wards closing down because of that. Nor do I see any less of a need for proper medical provision in those countries where there are millions of charismatic evangelicals claiming to be able to perform miracles.

What planet is this guy living on?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I think it shows a misreading of the 1st c. experience, and of healing. People were, I believe, miraculously healed in the 1s c. And people are miraculously healed today. But in the 1st c., as now, there were far more people who not healed than were healed. In fact, I'm pretty sure that every single 1st c. Christian eventually died of something. We hear that Luke was a doctor, that Paul suffered from some mysterious but uncured and unhealed ailment, and that Timothy received medical advice for his stomach troubles.

So it would seem the purpose of the gift of healing is something other than reducing all human suffering, something other than eliminating the need for medical intervention, something other than the elimination of all disease. The gospels and Acts generally pair healing with talk of "signs" so perhaps that gives us a clue. But regardless, expecting there to be no hospitals seems to be a dangerously unwarranted position.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Christ raised up the healing ministrations of the Samaritan as exemplary of what a Godly person should do. But then, Christ was probably one of those despicable liberals...

--Tom Clune

[ 27. August 2012, 16:43: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Just Me (# 14937) on :

I don't understand what your issue is here - is there a link available?

There's a world of difference between suggesting an argument that the early church saw miracles in order that later generations might be inspired to build hospitals is fatuous (it certainly seems a strange argument to me) and suggesting that hospitals are a stupid idea.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm challenging a comment that Ender's Shadow made on the thread about the church scene in Wales.

In response to the citation of a sociological article about the decline of active religion in the Welsh Valleys following the decline heavy industry, Ender's Shadow made the following comments:

'Cute sociology, naff theology; this is the route that has led the church to establish any number of social work agencies and never actually preach the gospel. There is no evidence that the early church used it as a model*: ...

* The fatuous suggestion that they healed so we should build hospitals should be disdained for the bad joke that it is.'

Ok, in fairness to Ender's Shadow, he admits that he is overstating the case to make a point. As indeed I am here.

What I am challenging, as Cliffdweller has rightly identified, is the notion that miraculous healings should somehow be the norm in contemporary church life and that the lack of such things is a sign of spiritual declension of some kind.

It does appear, at times, that such healings were quite widespread in the early Church. Whether we take Luke's account in Acts being largely historical or as a kind of pious 'novel' or hagiography based on real events, it appears axiomatic that the early Christians believed in healings in response to prayer - a worldview, one imagines, they shared with adherents of other religions at the time.

Like Cliffdweller, I am open to the possibility of such things today, but feel that the kind of comments made by Ender's Shadow on the Welsh churches thread are somewhat sweeping and dismissive. As if we'd be seeing loads more of these kind of occurrences and all manner of church growth and ra-ra-ra Acts of the Apostles stuff if it weren't for those pesky lib'ruls ...

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

I clearly live and move and have my being in a different ecclesial and theological world but I thought that the reason why the Church had opened hospitals was in direct response to the dominical command to heal the sick...y'know alongside clothing the naked and looking after the widow, orphan and stranger in our midst. Have I missed something? Where's the beef?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I clearly live and move and have my being in a different ecclesial and theological world but I thought that the reason why the Church had opened hospitals was in direct response to the dominical command to heal the sick...y'know alongside clothing the naked and looking after the widow, orphan and stranger in our midst. Have I missed something? Where's the beef?

See, that's your problem. Those are all supposed to be a bunch of those . . . whaddaya call 'em? . . . metaphors.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Nothing is fatuous about hospitals. It is 'healing prayer' and prayer for miracles that seems higher on the scale of fatuousity. Or maybe just for those of us whom God doesn't pay attention to? whom God avoids listening to? whom God would rather smite? whom God apparently hates?

I am fully sceptical about God bothering to intervene in human life (or even doing it ever), and suspect God would rather inspire humans to intervene with each other in loving Jesusly ways than go to the bother to listen to however many well-meant plaintive cries for help, healing and miracle. At least, God has avoided me and many people of faith with whom I'm acquainted.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
God has avoided me and many people of faith with whom I'm acquainted.

So, what is this faith actually directed towards, then? Faith would appear to be unnecessary if God is deemed to be keeping his distance.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No, I don't think you've missed something, Trisagion, I think that Ender's Shadow has.

He seems to be suggesting that establishing hospitals and other works of mercy as a result of dominical commands is somehow of lesser importance than expecting to see miracles in response to believing prayer.

At least, that's the logic of his position. And that's what I'm challenging him on.

I'm suggesting that it's an overly dualistic and binary approach.

Where is he, by the way? He's not turned up here to defend or state his case ...

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Let's not forget, either, that ever since their invention, hospitals and hospices have been places where the sick are cared for, even when no cure is possible. I suppose therefore you could say that the existence of hospitals is a sign of the failure of healing miracles.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Or you could turn it around, as some over-egging things types might, to suggest that God has permitted these things because of our failure in terms of lack of faith ... [Roll Eyes]

My own view would be that the supernatural healings recorded in the Gospels and Acts were 'signs' - in the sense that Cliffdweller has identified and that, as Trisagion has observed, the Church set up ministries of mercy and healing in response to Christ's commands - heal the sick, clothe the naked, feed the hungry etc ...

Indeed, they were doing those practical things at the time of the Book of Acts itself - deacons were set aside to care for widows and orphans for instance, and Stephen, the first Christian martyr, was among that number.

It's a false dichotomy, I would suggest, to draw a big distinction between the healing/mercy ministries exercised in the name of Christ using practical means and those which are apparently supernatural in origin. The two things seem to have gone concurrently in the Early Church.

What Ender's Shadow, and others like him, seem to be doing (and I'm overstating my case to make a point) is to introduce a dualistic and binary division between the two - even to the point of deriding the efforts of more liberal or more sacramental Christians who are doing valuable social work and ameliorating suffering.

This strikes me as pompous, narrow-minded and just plain daft. I don't happen to agree with the theology and practice of the Seventh Day Adventists, for instance - I don't agree with their views on the Sabbath and various aspects of their praxis. But does that mean that I wouldn't acknowledge that they have done - and continue to do - valuable and sterling work in terms of health care and development, particularly in Africa?

No, of course I wouldn't.

What Ender's Shadow appears to be doing is taking statements by more liberal or sacramental Christians to the effect that hospitals and charities are continuing the healing work of Christ and scoffing at it because, in his view, it leaves no room for the supernatural.

This, I suggest, is dualistic and almost Gnostic.

It is not a tenable view in any way, shape or form.

That doesn't mean that one has to agree with liberal Christianity - heck, I'm pretty conservative theologically - but neither does it mean that we should dismiss, deride or disparage any of the good work that is done in Christ's name.

'If anyone gives you a cup of cold water in my name ...'

I agree with Trisagion. Where's the beef?

The beef is only there in the eye of the beholder. The beef belongs to Ender's Shadow and it diminishes him.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think it shows a misreading of the 1st c. experience, and of healing. People were, I believe, miraculously healed in the 1s c. And people are miraculously healed today. But in the 1st c., as now, there were far more people who not healed than were healed. In fact, I'm pretty sure that every single 1st c. Christian eventually died of something. We hear that Luke was a doctor, that Paul suffered from some mysterious but uncured and unhealed ailment, and that Timothy received medical advice for his stomach troubles.

So it would seem the purpose of the gift of healing is something other than reducing all human suffering, something other than eliminating the need for medical intervention, something other than the elimination of all disease. The gospels and Acts generally pair healing with talk of "signs" so perhaps that gives us a clue. But regardless, expecting there to be no hospitals seems to be a dangerously unwarranted position.

This.

Healing seems never to have had the goal of "let's make everybody possible better". Instead we get situations where God/God incarnate in Jesus seems to go out of his way to heal ONE person and no one else (such as the guy at the pool of Bethesda, or the leper Naaman Jesus mentioned while explicitly saying that the Israelite lepers of the time went unhealed).

Given this behavior on God's part, hospitals are absolutely necessary. He's made it quite clear [Tear]

that he has never had any intention of removing all health problems by miraculous means, at least before the Last Day. And since we can't twist his arm effectively, we have to deal with the situation as it stands. Which means hospitals etc.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Sorry I haven't responded before - I wasn't aware that this thread was aimed at my comment; thanks Gamaliel for the heads-up.

Let's parse what I said - which has been misunderstood:

quote:
The fatuous suggestion that they healed so we should build hospitals should be disdained for the bad joke that it is.

Now what I should have said is 'they healed THEREFORE we should build hospitals...'

In the context in which the dominical command is given, the phrase is

quote:
8 Whatever city you enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you; 9 and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, ‘ The kingdom of God has come near to you.’

Luke 10:8-9
What I am objecting to is the way that the church has drifted from being an organisation that proclaims the kingdom, to one that provides social services. Specifically the way that many Christians see providing standard health care as in some way 'proclaiming the kingdom'; it seems to me that this verse points to a model of evangelism where miraculous healings provide evidence for the kingdom, not just a charitable activity. Specifically we see NO NT evidence of the church establishing hospitals - instead we see the apostles 'healing the sick', and this leading to effective evangelism. These days the church provides hospitals - which don't excite any interest in the wider community - and don't do effective evangelism. If Jesus had intended his disciples to establish hospitals as a fulfilment of this instruction, then logically we should have seen this done by the first generation of Christians. We don't.

Now, please don't hear me as suggesting that all modern medicine etc is a bad idea. It's not - it's an entirely appropriate activity for humanity to pursue as a part of its creation task of subduing the earth. And the fact that missionaries are providing modern medical care as a part of the their social concern is great. But it's not, IMNSHO, a correct fulfilment of the dominical command...

Let me try and clarify further: suppose I attended a Christian run hospital in a western country. They do a great job healing me using modern medicine and paid for by the government. As I'm leaving, can a member of staff really say, with a straight face: 'The kingdom of God has come near to you'. It's got nothing particularly to do with God - it's an application of science, paid for by my taxes.

That's why I stand by my statement that hospitals are not the right fulfilment of this command. To be fair, it can probably be argued that all these good things are now done as a result of Christian principles seeping into the body politic, and our atheist brethren would take exception to that claim anyway. But I am certain that that's not what Jesus was encouraging us to do as our evangelistic technique.

Note of course that the third world situation is different; over there a medical mission may well enable effective evangelism - though there is no guarantee.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

What I am objecting to is the way that the church has drifted from being an organisation that proclaims the kingdom, to one that provides social services. Specifically the way that many Christians see providing standard health care as in some way 'proclaiming the kingdom'; it seems to me that this verse points to a model of evangelism where miraculous healings provide evidence for the kingdom, not just a charitable activity. Specifically we see NO NT evidence of the church establishing hospitals - instead we see the apostles 'healing the sick', and this leading to effective evangelism. These days the church provides hospitals - which don't excite any interest in the wider community - and don't do effective evangelism. If Jesus had intended his disciples to establish hospitals as a fulfilment of this instruction, then logically we should have seen this done by the first generation of Christians. We don't.

I have to disagree with your statement that providing "social services" is not proclaiming the kingdom. Given that there are several commands in the scripture to feed the poor, visit those in prison and clothe the naked, right along with "heal the sick", which hospitals do, though maybe not in the supernatural way that many Christians seem to prefer. The healing that is accomplished by the field of medicine these days is miraculous in that much of it wasn't possible not so long ago. "Social services" proclaim the Kingdom in that they reveal the love of God to those in need. I worked in a 7th Day Adventist Hospital where they practiced cutting edge medicine, healing many who are thought of as terminal. But the mission of the gospel is also proclaimed to the patients, but not in an obnoxious pushy way. In fact it was made clear to all employees that our mission was proclaiming the kingdom both in action and word. I also had surgery there and the doctors prayed with me in the OR before I was put under. As a believer I greatly appreciated it. Part of my job enabled me to talk with non believers with terminal cancer and other terminal conditions. There were many non believers who appreciated having Christian docs, nurses and even office staff. Those who didn't want to hear it didn't - we were sensitive. But I have to believe even a hospital stay was a seed planted for many.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Let me try and clarify further: suppose I attended a Christian run hospital in a western country. They do a great job healing me using modern medicine and paid for by the government. As I'm leaving, can a member of staff really say, with a straight face: 'The kingdom of God has come near to you'. It's got nothing particularly to do with God - it's an application of science, paid for by my taxes.

If it's paid for by your taxes, in what sense is it a Christian hospital?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok, thanks for coming along and for clarifying what you meant. I had understood what you meant, as it happens, but I was taking issue with it and being deliberately provocative in the way I framed my response.

You say that your objection is that the church has drifted from being an organisation that proclaims the Kingdom to one that provides social services.

Well, what were the early Christians doing in Acts 6 when they appointed deacons to assist in the daily distribution of food to the widows?

Was that not a form of social service?

Now, they didn't neglect the preaching and proclamation in order to do so, of course. The whole point of having deacons to do it was that the Twelve could give themselves more fully to preaching and proclamation.

I really don't see the dichtomy here at all.

Even the most liberal of churches have some kind of preaching and public worship going on. They haven't closed down their worship services in order to run hospitals and orphanages etc.

You might not agree with what they preach but that's a different issue.

Why shouldn't the provision of standard health care be seen as some way of 'proclaiming the kingdom.' It's that business of giving a 'cup of cold water in Christ's name.' It's that business of showing compassion.

I really don't get the distinction you're making. I submit that it is a false distinction based on an over-realised and over-egged form of evangelical charismatic spirituality.

I don't know about you, but I've never seen anyone 'healed' in response to my prayers in my entire life. At least, not that I am aware of.

Does that mean that I am failing to proclaim the kingdom?

As I evidently don't possess any spectacular healing powers nor am I trained in the medical sciences then what can I do? I may give charitably to help run hospices, hospitals and other providers of health and social services. Is that not, in some small way, helping to extend the kingdom?

You also object: 'Specifically we see NO NT evidence of the church establishing hospitals - instead we see the apostles 'healing the sick', and this leading to effective evangelism.'

Well ... we don't see NT evidence of the church establishing creches and nurseries, of the church organising soup-runs or sponsored walks. So what? What is WRONG with these things?

We don't see the church riding bicycles or driving cars ...

You also object:

'These days the church provides hospitals - which don't excite any interest in the wider community - and don't do effective evangelism.'

Nonsense. I could cite examples of RC-run hospices and so on that attract a lot of interest in their local community. You are making a false dichotomy again.

I can think of churches that do loads and loads of evangelism - in the traditional evangelical sense - and still don't have a high profile in their community.

What would you rather? To be known for running an effective and respected hospice service or to be known for handing out tracts in the market-place week by week and annoying people?

Of course, it should be both/and ... not either or - social and compassionate action AND evangelism.

You maintain:

'If Jesus had intended his disciples to establish hospitals as a fulfilment of this instruction, then logically we should have seen this done by the first generation of Christians. We don't.'

Now that really IS fatuous. The first generation of Christians set up collections for the poor, for the relief of widows and orphans. Surely some form of regularised health-care would follow on from a corollary of that. 'Trophimus I left sick at Miletus ...' how do you know that the Apostle Paul didn't leave Trophimus in the care of believers who were skilled and given to caring for the sick?

On the thing about whether someone in a modern, western hospital can say to you with a straight face, 'The Kingdom of God has come near to you ...'

Well, of course they can. Why ever not?

If you want to get that literal and prescriptive then you might as well claim that only those who have had demons cast out of them have had the kingdom of God come near to them:

'If I cast out demons by the finger of God then the kingdom of God has come near to you.'

You assert:

'It's got nothing particularly to do with God - it's an application of science, paid for by my taxes.'

There, you're at it again. Dualism. Why can't it have something to do with God? 'Every good and perfect gift comes from above ...'

How do you know that God isn't working providentially behind the scenes to ensure that modern science and your taxes provide adequate health care in your locality?

Why say 'grace' and thank God for your food? It's got nothing particularly to do with God. A farmer grew it, a distributor sold it to a supermarket and you bought and consumed it. What has that got to do with God? Why thank him at all?

Take your argument to its logical conclusion then we wouldn't work or buy food at all. We'd simply sit at our tables and wait for God to send ravens in with food to feed us.

Ok, so you've acknowledged that it might be the result of good things seeping into the body politic through Christian influence. It could be, but the Christian faith has never had a monopoly of good things. 'Every good and perfect gift comes from above ...' surely includes things that aren't necessarily directly and specifically tied up with the Christian faith.

Yours is a very dualistic world-view, my friend.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If it's paid for by your taxes, in what sense is it a Christian hospital?

We have them in Canada. Generally (if not all) they are Roman Catholic and they are part of medicare, the universal publically funded, free to the user health care. We also have Roman Catholic and other religiously affiliated and run schools that are tax payer funded. I suspect your comment is about the American model.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

From the adoption of Christianity as the official religion in the Roman Empire hospitals were founded at a rate not seen before. Every cathedral city had to provide a hospital, to care, cure and comfort the sick. For many years and in many places those employed in them were monks and nuns.

It was not until the Renaissance that hospitals and health care in general became secularised to any extent, and in the USA, home of many 'healing ministries' most hospitals are non-profit institutions and many are sponsored by religious denominations.

Healing ministry v hospital provision isn't a zero-sum game. Ender's Shadow appears to be spoiling for a fight where there is no need for one: some have a ministry of spiritual healing, others have a steady pair of hands. These, among many others, are gifts from God.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

In a country like the UK, caring for the sick and ensuring that the unemployed don't go hungry are tasks that have largely been taken over by the secular state, and have become rights rather than blessings. In our situation, maybe it's unlikely that ordinary people see this kind of assistance as somehow 'Christian' or spiritual. They may be very grateful for it, but they see it as an entitlement, which isn't quite how Christians are supposed to see God's gifts.

The Christians who work in the state-run institutions that meet these needs may see their work as a part of their Christian vocation, of course. But as we know, the nation is nervous about this sort of vocation being expressed verbally.

So I'm inclined to think that the evangelistic value of much of this kind of work is muted. But I'm sure it's good for the souls of the Christians doing the work!

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

SvitlanaV2:
Your point is well taken and leads me to ask the question, perhaps rhetorical: how much of illness is a spiritual problem in addition or compounded, and how much of that side of illnesses is currently ignored?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

No prophet

I don't know. We do sometimes hear people complain that medical treatment isn't sufficiently holistic, that the focus is the illness rather than the person. But whether the church as we know it has the answer to that is another matter. Mainstream Christianity has been accused of lacking a holistic approach as well, but in a different way. I'm sure we could find examples of good practice, though.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Christ raised up the healing ministrations of the Samaritan as exemplary of what a Godly person should do. But then, Christ was probably one of those despicable liberals...

--Tom Clune

The Samaritan used his own money, though.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

A certain Maggie Thatcher used to say the same thing, Mere Nick.

[Roll Eyes]

Anyhow, whether it is public or private funds that are used, funds need to be used. The Good Samaritan in the parable didn't wave a magic wand or pray a prayer and everything was suddenly all right, he spent a lot of time and effort and money ensuring that the victim was cared for and nursed back to health.

I'm frankly quite staggered by Ender's Shadow's attitude in this whole thing. Ok, if he wants to disparage liberal theology and maintain that a conservative approach is the best one - with provision made for the expectation that at least some people will be healed in response to prayer - that's up to him.

But to disparage all the efforts that Christians of all stripes and political persuasions, whether right or left, have made over the centuries to care for the sick and serve their fellow man in the name of Christ is outrageous.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

OK I give in - I over stated my case. There is a major problem with the fact that liberals ONLY see hospital provision as the fulfilment of this command - and that was what I was reacting against. I'm also frustrated at the way that so many institutions that have a Christian history are now totally secular in ethos and approach; for reasons that it would be interesting to debate. But yes, I have to admit that there is occasion for the Christians to offer medical care as part of the ministry of the church.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Ender's Shadow:
I think the liberal aspect is a red herring. And fatuous in the idea. Health problems (to use a very inclusive liberal term) are by their nature physical, psychological and spiritual problems (to use the conservative or traditional analysis).

To say that how the aspects are omitted, emphasized, or minimized is not a liberal nor conservative error, it is a legacy of philosophical basis of much of the Enlightenment: the separation of mind, body and spirit that we commonly blame on Descartes, though many others are also responsible. We follow such ideologies rigidly at our peril as you helpfully point out, but it is unhelpful to say it is the fault of any particular philosophical or political whipping boy. The world has some other people in it, who don't identify as liberal or conservative and draw on aspects of life and ideas as they merit. If I for a minute accepted the dichotomy, perhaps I'd have to label those folks as liberaservatives or conserberals.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I agree with No Prophet. I'm not trying to belabour the point nor beat Ender's Shadow up, but I would suggest that there is a kind of dualistic dichotomy in the more conservative approach (as indeed there is within the radical/liberal one) - which can't seem to handle both/and rather than either/or.

You can see it in conservative reactions to Tom Wright's contributions to the 'New Perspective on Paul' debate for instance. 'It's outrageous ... Wright must be advocating salvation by works!!!'

I'm afraid I'm coming up against this sort of thing all the time with my more conservative and charismatic evangelical friends - it's as if they've got to nail everything down to a rigid and inflexible position for fear that someone will move the goal-posts whilst they're not looking.

I can understand that, but it can also be very irritating.

On the aspect of formerly Christian organisations becoming more secularised. Well, yes, that does happen. Some do, some don't. It's not something I get too exercised about though. But I can see grounds for concern there, certainly.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
OK I give in - I over stated my case. There is a major problem with the fact that liberals ONLY see hospital provision as the fulfilment of this command - and that was what I was reacting against. I'm also frustrated at the way that so many institutions that have a Christian history are now totally secular in ethos and approach; for reasons that it would be interesting to debate. But yes, I have to admit that there is occasion for the Christians to offer medical care as part of the ministry of the church.

I went for your throat earlier, so I apologise for that and I'm happy with what you state. In broad terms liberals and progressives tend to be sceptical of and denigrate 'healing ministries' while the more conservative object to the absence of evangelical content in medicine as a whole.

That there are fraudulent healing ministries is beyond doubt, just as secular medicine has its share of corruption, so we should take a balanced view.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A certain Maggie Thatcher used to say the same thing, Mere Nick.

It is what Jesus said, too.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A certain Maggie Thatcher used to say the same thing, Mere Nick.
It is what Jesus said, too.

The difference between to 2 sides of the pond is government funding of the health care system. Ours used to be all non profit hospitals with most having been founded by churches. Now only a fraction are church run and the rest are for profit. Quality of care has gone down with for profit hospitals and costs have skyrocketed and millions of people are shut out of obtaining health coverage. What do you do when there aren't enough Samaritans spending their own money to cover the massive needs?

[ 29. August 2012, 15:00: Message edited by: Niteowl ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

So Jesus would be opposed to a National Health Service then, Mere Nick?

[Roll Eyes]

Well, I'd suggest that if he was going to be opposed to that, he'd also be opposed to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

In fact, he'd probably be opposed to the US Full-stop. [Razz]

Seriously though, I don't object to Jesus saying it, but I did object to Maggie Thatcher doing so - and we all saw what happened with her Messianic tendencies ...

Anyway, back to the plot. The point I was making, of course, was that whether it's private funding or public funding, this sort of thing needs funding. I think we'd all agree with that.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0