Children and illness..........

[Scott Bushey]

Is it me or does everyone else feel that children with severe disease conditions should be covered under a social medicine blanket???

Why should a 3 year and the families of, incur any cost for a leukemia or a cancer, etc.? What are we animals; where is the compassion?

[Edited on 6-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Scot]

Scott,

I understand what you're saying and the point you're making but I'd have to say that I don't think this is a good idea. The reason being is that I believe the treatments used for such dis-eases are inhumane. In fact, they usually destroy the body faster and bring death more quickly, causing much suffering in the process. If children were covered by such a "social medicine blanket" you can be sure that the only things that would be offered would be the "cut, burn and poison" treatments. Other more effective treatments would not be made available under this "blanket".

In Christ,
Scot

 

[Bladestunner316]

Giving Iraq's health care coverage for all is democratic but doing it for americans is socialism

I feel for you scott If I were in charge your kids as well as others would be covered life is precious we shouldnt waste it.

blade

 

[blhowes]

[b:758ca2308b]Scott wrote:[/b:758ca2308b]
Why should a 3 year and the families of, incur any cost for a leukemia or a cancer, etc.? What are we animals; where is the compassion?

Did you mean to write "any cost"? If so, some of the animal in me may surface because I don't know that they should get free health care. It would be nice if the government could help them out so that its more affordable. It'd also be nice if hospitals, doctors, etc could keep the costs down. Of course that won't happen if people don't stop the fraudulant malpractice suits...

I'm not real familiar with the issue, but from what I've heard there's not much help. I heard a heart-wrenching story on the news this last year about a family that had a child with severe health issues (it may have been cancer, but I'm not sure). They spent their life's savings on doctor bills for the child. In order for the child to get any help, the parents had to basically give up all rights to the child to the government before the government could help the child. This is absurd.

Bob

 

[Scott Bushey]

Bob,
What would be so bad in eating the cost of the coverage for children whom have chronic, catastrophic cases, i.e. leukemia, transplants, cancers?

 

[Bladestunner316]

but the church relies on tithing and some just cant front the bill.

blade

 

[blhowes]

[b:fc95fd0701]Scott wrote:[/b:fc95fd0701]
What would be so bad in eating the cost of the coverage for children whom have chronic, catastrophic cases, i.e. leukemia, transplants, cancers?

You know, you might be right about those cases. I guess I'm just use to having health insurance where we're required to pay some deductible plus a minimal charge for doctors visits,etc.

Aren't you a nurse? Do you have any feel for how widespread these kinds of diseases are? What would you estimate would be the typical cost per person? If you had to guess, how much do you think would be needed to cover the costs? Are we talking millions of dollars...billions (I doubt it)?

Bob

[Edited on 6-17-2004 by blhowes]

 

[Bladestunner316]

good point but if the government regulates these things then how can the church bipass the gov in order to provide these services?

blade

 

[Bladestunner316]

The governemnt needs to do the following-

1. Find what causes these problems and work to prevent them.

2. Ease or if possible cure present illnesses.

3. work on a cure.

blade

 

[Scot]

[quote:4e9741038b]
The government needs to do the following:

1. Find out what causes these problems and work to prevent them.

2. Ease or if possible cure present illnesses.

3. work on a cure
[/quote:4e9741038b]

I totally agree. The sad thing is all three of these have been done but not by the government. The problem that exists is that the pharmaceutical industry controls alot of what goes on in medicine. They fund the medical schools, provide the info. for text books, etc. It's a sad but true that anything that cuts into their profit is labeled "quackery" or unscientific. There are places that have a very high success rates with curing these types of diseases. The last time I looked, the Gerson institute had an 80% cancer cure rate. That's unheard of in the medical community.

The modern medical model treats the symptoms of disease with dangerous drugs that interfere with the body's functioning. They are not trained to fix the problem in most cases.

The lady that does muscle therapy in my office went to mexico about 12 years ago with terminal breast cancer and came back cancer free. No chemo, no surgery. The type of treatment she recieved has been proven over and over again but it's illegal in the U.S.

The love of money is the root of all evil.

Scot

 

[Bladestunner316]

scot,
also another factor we may not think of is this. Using the medical industry as a form of chemical warfare.

Now I remember my grandmother saying bush was supposed to give millions to africa to fight aids but he recanted and the money never went.

Now if our government cured aids or had the cure and gave it to africa just africa for example. Thier the gov's problem is now you have a continent full of africans free of aids.

This leaves the population at millions of helathy africans and not sick africans who could turn africa into a dominating world power.

Now the gov regulates the medical industry not only for their own profits monitarially but also to prevent other nations from becoming healthy and growing mor epowerful than us.

Also they use it on us to limit population growth. To many free thinkning americans is bad for government.

Just a thought.

blade

p.s. same with legalizing abortion.

[Edited on 6-17-2004 by Bladestunner316]

 

[Scot]

[quote:e732a37ee8]
scot,
also another factor we may not think of is this. Using the medical industry as a form of chemical warfare.

Now I remember my grandmother saying bush was supposed to give millions to africa to fight aids but he recanted and the money never went.

Now if our government cured aids or had the cure and gave it to africa just africa for example. Thier the gov's problem is now you have a continent full of africans free of aids.

This leaves the population at millions of helathy africans and not sick africans who could turn africa into a dominating world power.

Now the gov regulates the medical industry not only for their own profits monitarially but also to prevent other nations from becoming healthy and growing mor epowerful than us.

Also they use it on us to limit population growth. To many free thinkning americans is bad for government.

Just a thought.

blade

p.s. same with legalizing abortion.

[/quote:e732a37ee8]

Yeah, I've read things on that as well. I've even read about the government spreading aids through vaccinations in Africa. I won't get into a whole explanation on how vaccines are made but some of the viruses are grown animal tissue (I forget which one is grown in aborted fetal tissue, something christians need to be aware of). I've read that the people of africa where vaccinated with a vaccine that was grown in monkey kidneys which where infected with aids. Some say that this was on purpose, others say that it was accidental.

I hate to have people think that I'm into conspiracy theories but when looking at the depravity of man, it wouldn't surprise me.

I do know for a fact that there are alot of things that could be done for our major diseases/ailments that people are not told about. I do believe that these therapies are kept from the public on purpose. Not necessarily by the medical doctors but by the ones who provide their education.

Scot

 

[ChristianasJourney]

The problem is, as I see it, when someone else pays the costs, the patient or the parent gives up their right to decide on treatment methods.

The doctors do not have my child's best interests at heart.

The pharm. industry doesn't have my child's best interests at heart.

The science and research doesn't have my child's best interests at heart.

And certainly the government doesn't have my child's best interests at heart.

Often doctors recommendations are based upon the latest research, but if you look at history sometimes the latest research isn't always the best, or accurate.

I want to retain the right to say nay/yea to chemo, radiation, or other treatments.

 

[Scot]

[quote:df4906bb33]
Often doctors recommendations are based upon the latest research, but if you look at history sometimes the latest research isn't always the best, or accurate.
[/quote:df4906bb33]

And where does the funding for this research usually come from? Pharm companies

[quote:df4906bb33]
I want to retain the right to say nay/yea to chemo, radiation, or other treatments.
[/quote:df4906bb33]

 

[Bladestunner316]

scot,
another thing is regardless if done on purpose we bring it upon ourselves by being sinners.go figure.

blade

[Edited on 6-17-2004 by Bladestunner316]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Blade and Scot,
As interesting as some of your arguments sound, please do not post conspiracy theories on the Puritan Board, unless you have some sort of proof for the things you are alleging (i.e. growing HIV in monkey kidneys or deliberately infecting Africans with HIV). This is a form of slander and contributes nothing to the discussion much less to our credibility as a Christian discussion board.

 

[Scot]

[quote:7b0d36323d]
we bring it upon ourselves by being sinners.
[/quote:7b0d36323d]

True.

 

[Scot]

Patrick,


[quote:506e2c4301]
Blade and Scot,
As interesting as some of your arguments sound, please do not post conspiracy theories on the Puritan Board, unless you have some sort of proof for the things you are alleging (i.e. growing HIV in monkey kidneys or deliberately infecting Africans with HIV). This is a form of slander and contributes nothing to the discussion much less to our credibility as a Christian discussion board.
[/quote:506e2c4301]

Point well taken, I don't mean to stear the topic to conspiracy theories. I was simply noting some things that I've read, I wasn't promoting my own theory on anything.

As far as how vaccines are made, anyone can look up the vaccine package inserts and see for themselves that they are grown in different kinds of tissue (including human - human dipliod cells).

Scot

 

[king of fools]

I just flipped my lid. Socialized medicine on the puritan board?

I don't even know where to starts. First, to answer the original question. [i:12f8b03658]"Is it me or does everyone else feel that children with severe disease conditions should be covered under a social medicine blanket???"[/i:12f8b03658] - my answer is no.

I undestand the semtiment behind this. 1) people are sick. 2) we have technology that we are told can treat them. 3) it's expensive. 4) let's all chip in (or be taxed) to get them treated.

How it turns out: 1) We get taxed. 2) politicians blow the money. 3) People become dependent on the system. 4) People cheat the system. 4) The governement gets so bloated that they have to cut the service because they "can't afford it", but they still tax us.

First, let's start with the concept of "for the children". Everything from lottery sales, to anti-smoking campaigns, socialized medicine, etc are all pushed through "for the children". For this line of thinking, what should the answer be for someone who's 19, 29 or 89 if they want treatment on a government anti-disease medical program? "Tough, you're too old Chuck! Your mamma should have brought you in to get your disease treated when you were still a child." My point for this is asking why make this entitlement program open only to children? Why not just give everyone with a "severe disease condition" a free pass and tax-paid medical treatment?

Secondly, why should government get involved? Unless the child is an orphan and a ward of the state. People should be responsible on their own for their own lives. Familes blow all of their money on junk instead of saving for a rainy day. I think this is a slippery slope to go down. It means more taxes, more intrusion into people's lives, etc. The overall conept is that people who are successful will have to be punished to pay for those who aren't. If we get enough of these things the entire economy will bog down. Logically, enough of these programs can sink an economy. Everyone will want on board. What about for a tooth ache? Why not cover that as well? That's the next step. Remember, socialism has never worked, it always forces people to treat their governemtns as god. It's institutionalized idolatry.

I could go on and on and on, and I think this will spart some discussion. I've got to go to work.

 

[Mary]

[quote:e7c8485a3b][i:e7c8485a3b]Originally posted by ChristianasJourney[/i:e7c8485a3b]
The problem is, as I see it, when someone else pays the costs, the patient or the parent gives up their right to decide on treatment methods.

The doctors do not have my child's best interests at heart.

The pharm. industry doesn't have my child's best interests at heart.

The science and research doesn't have my child's best interests at heart.

And certainly the government doesn't have my child's best interests at heart.

Often doctors recommendations are based upon the latest research, but if you look at history sometimes the latest research isn't always the best, or accurate.

I want to retain the right to say nay/yea to chemo, radiation, or other treatments. [/quote:e7c8485a3b]

Amen Janice. It's all about (as Grandpa would say) "The Almighty Dollar"...

Sad but true.

Mary