[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I agree with this. I have told many of my friends, “If the church had done what God instructed them to do the US Government never would have had to set up Welfare.”
[/quote]
Welfare replaced the ‘poorhouse system’, which replaced indentured auctions, which replaced, debtor prisons, etc.
Is there a point on the time-line where you think we had the ‘accountability condition’ correct? [/quote]
What do you mean by “accountability condition”? Are you meaning people being accountable for welfare, or the church being accountable to God?
[/quote]
“Our priorities should be in order before anyone gets a hand out. There has to be accountability. The government throws money at people for votes, with zero accountability. Charities at least can pull money from people if they do not do what is right.” dmaddox
I’m just interested if you think one of the previous approaches provided better accountability with regards to the individual receiving the assistance.
I don’t understand thinking charities will solve much of these issues.
I can only believe that many don’t understand just how much this stuff costs.
This goes back to expecting all child care to occur through charities. That isn’t going to happen. People will die in large amounts if things were this way.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I agree with this. I have told many of my friends, “If the church had done what God instructed them to do the US Government never would have had to set up Welfare.”
[/quote]
Welfare replaced the ‘poorhouse system’, which replaced indentured auctions, which replaced, debtor prisons, etc.
Is there a point on the time-line where you think we had the ‘accountability condition’ correct? [/quote]
What do you mean by “accountability condition”? Are you meaning people being accountable for welfare, or the church being accountable to God?
[/quote]
“Our priorities should be in order before anyone gets a hand out. There has to be accountability. The government throws money at people for votes, with zero accountability. Charities at least can pull money from people if they do not do what is right.” dmaddox
I’m just interested if you think one of the previous approaches provided better accountability with regards to the individual receiving the assistance. [/quote]
My statement was more against the current system. There is way too much waste, and I would prefer people who actually need the money to get it. “Our priorities” is talking about food, clothing, and shelter. Many people of welfare have very nice luxury items. If they have extra to buy luxury items then they do not need the hand out. There needs to be accountability.
People know the government is over worked so they will never check up on them. Our morals as a society are no longer there so why would anyone give up free money? If you ran the risk of losing your hand out would you risk it by buying that Flat screen tv?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t understand thinking charities will solve much of these issues.
I can only believe that many don’t understand just how much this stuff costs.
This goes back to expecting all child care to occur through charities. That isn’t going to happen. People will die in large amounts if things were this way.[/quote]
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Our morals as a society are no longer there so why would anyone give up free money?[/quote]
Yes…when leadership and authority abandon the moral high ground for convenience and profit everyone will suffer. People at the bottom follow the example that is set for them.
No bank ever went out of business because of the errors the tellers were making!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t understand thinking charities will solve much of these issues.
I can only believe that many don’t understand just how much this stuff costs.
This goes back to expecting all child care to occur through charities. That isn’t going to happen. People will die in large amounts if things were this way.[/quote]
Why are you so sure about that?
[/quote]
Because those insurance incentives for child care are largely the ONLY reason many of these kids are seen in the clinic early. Without that completely, children will receive far less preventive care which will lead to deaths.
That is how this works. That is medicine.
Patient compliance is the biggest hurdle for care.
California bill would allow nurse practitioners and other non-physicians the right to perform first-trimester abortions cleared the Legislature on Friday.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
California bill would allow nurse practitioners and other non-physicians the right to perform first-trimester abortions cleared the Legislature on Friday.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
California bill would allow nurse practitioners and other non-physicians the right to perform first-trimester abortions cleared the Legislature on Friday.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t understand thinking charities will solve much of these issues.
I can only believe that many don’t understand just how much this stuff costs.
This goes back to expecting all child care to occur through charities. That isn’t going to happen. People will die in large amounts if things were this way.[/quote]
Why are you so sure about that?
[/quote]
Because those insurance incentives for child care are largely the ONLY reason many of these kids are seen in the clinic early. Without that completely, children will receive far less preventive care which will lead to deaths.
That is how this works. That is medicine.
Patient compliance is the biggest hurdle for care.[/quote]
So it is not insurance, but Patient compliance…Just like why do people not learn, not because we have built a lot of technologically advanced schools it is because the students and parents do not care.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t understand thinking charities will solve much of these issues.
I can only believe that many don’t understand just how much this stuff costs.
This goes back to expecting all child care to occur through charities. That isn’t going to happen. People will die in large amounts if things were this way.[/quote]
Why are you so sure about that?
[/quote]
Because those insurance incentives for child care are largely the ONLY reason many of these kids are seen in the clinic early. Without that completely, children will receive far less preventive care which will lead to deaths.
That is how this works. That is medicine.
Patient compliance is the biggest hurdle for care.[/quote]
So it is not insurance, but Patient compliance…Just like why do people not learn, not because we have built a lot of technologically advanced schools it is because the students and parents do not care.
[/quote]
Come on guys…read the fine print before loading the rifles.[/quote]
X you’ve said some things I agree with in this thread, but I can’t really agree with you here, and besides this process makes no sense on its face: so wait, not only is the procedure not done by a doc, but you are also requiring a doc’s supervision? So let me get this straight…not only do I not get the experienced guy with the terminal degree, but the law is also mandating a waste of 2 people’s time?
This is the definition of inefficient–either one person does it, or another person does it. but no we are going to mandate supervision which will waste more man hours–a doc cant see patients in the time it takes him to supervise this procedure, and one of the only arguments in favor of letting this happen would have been that it frees up the physician to take care of other patients at the same time, thus allowing a more efficient allocation of resources tl serve the most patients. But no, they didnt do that either.
Come on guys…read the fine print before loading the rifles.[/quote]
X you’ve said some things I agree with in this thread, but I can’t really agree with you here, [/quote]
You have nothing to disagree with. All I did was post what that bill actually states…which is that a doctor must be standing there when the procedure is done…which means you should have no issue.
They do the same thing in medical and dental school across the country. It’s legal and meets the standard of care…which is all you should be worried about.
Now, if you want to discuss how money is spent carrying that out, do so, but please, don’t miss the point that many of you jump on these issues simply because of your own bias whether you actually go through it all or not.
Come on guys…read the fine print before loading the rifles.[/quote]
X you’ve said some things I agree with in this thread, but I can’t really agree with you here, [/quote]
You have nothing to disagree with. All I did was post what that bill actually states…which is that a doctor must be standing there when the procedure is done…which means you should have no issue.
They do the same thing in medical and dental school across the country. It’s legal and meets the standard of care…which is all you should be worried about.
Now, if you want to discuss how money is spent carrying that out, do so, but please, don’t miss the point that many of you jump on these issues simply because of your own bias whether you actually go through it all or not.[/quote]
LoDoTo
Learn One, Do One, Teach One.
I was trained to do a bunch of stuff by MDs to care for my brother and I’ve never so much as darkened the door of a med school. Granted, the rules for caretakers of family members are entirely different than for medical professionals.
Once you have shown competency, you are qualified.