Should the Britain become secular at the loss of history and tradition? Watch

william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
I take your point, I think I'd put mine in these terms. There is no nation on earth that is as good at incorporating social advances whilst respecting tradition as the United Kingdom.

I've lived (for most of my life until my early 20s) in Australia, in the US and in the UK (for the last three years). I've travelled fairly widely. I have encountered no country that is able to hold onto its tradition whilst moving forward as a progressive, modern country in the way GB has.

I mean, it still has a House of Lords, for goodness sake. It has a monarch, it has a judicial official called the Master of the Rolls. It still has dukes and earls. What next, a Grand Wizard? At the same time, this country is exceptionally forward looking when it comes to progressive issues like health and social care, its attitude to sexuality, its tolerance and acceptance of minorities, its ability to take on new technologies and fashions.

I think this country truly is remarkable in that sense. And long may it continue, there is no need to sacrifice one for the other. This country's great talent is incorporating both tradition and modernity
Tradition doesn't help anything, it is pointless. Culture is what matters, do these traditions reinforce the culture.

No we no longer have the independent house of lords, it is controlled by the Commons now. The Monarch which refuses to use her power making the Monarch pointless. Yes families get to keep their titles, even their property.

Forward looking? What on earth does this mean. You mean government control of health and social care. You mean we allow people to be Gay and support them for being so, with threat of inprisonment and fines if we don't. You mean there are people who aren't culturally British and we tolerate and accept them, well that all sounds good. You mean new American technology and fashion.

So in closing the government controls what healthcare people get, people are forced to tolerate Gay people rather than accepting them, people of different cultures aren't forced to change to the mono-culture, rather they just have to accept laws they have no culture basis for supporting. Oh and we no longer create new world leading technology or fashions as we did.

Well this paints a picture of a very weak, culturally divided and opressive country. This is what secular progessive liberalism causes.
0
quote
reply
gladders
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
I for one would love for there to be a Grand Wizard of England and Wales
0
quote
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
(Original post by william walker)
Tradition doesn't help anything, it is pointless. Culture is what matters, do these traditions reinforce the culture.

No we no longer have the independent house of lords, it is controlled by the Commons now.
What school did you go to?
0
quote
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 years ago
#24
(Original post by gladders)
I for one would love for there to be a Grand Wizard of England and Wales
Haha! Glad you liked.
0
quote
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
(Original post by william walker)
Good for you.

I am saying we have had seperation of Church and government since the Glorious Revolution with the Monarch acting for the Church as head of the Church and defender of the Protestant faith. So the Church has no way of sustaining its role as the living protector of the Protestant English language bible as the moral basis for law. This means the Monarch would block all legislation on Abortion and Marriage which the Church doesn't support.
Nonsense. The Church has no life that is separate to that of the state, it is a part of the state and subject to parliamentary sovereignty like the rest of the country. Parliament has always taken a deep interest in the affairs of the Church, up to and including even the order and particular words of the liturgy.

It seems you are rather unaware of just how activist parliament was in regulating the church in the 19th century. The monarch has absolutely no obligation (or even a constitutional right, really) to block legislation on abortion and marriage. It sounds like you've never even heard of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857

The church thinks what parliament tells it to think. That's how an established church works. End of story.

However the Monarch doesn't do anything and hasn't done anything within her institutional role it means the Church has no influence to protect itself.
Because the monarch realises that would be completely inappropriate and cause a constitutional crisis.

The legislation of Parliament was always subject to the Monarchy and Church
My dear boy, you seem completely confused. How is the legislation of parliament subject to the church? Please point to a single, respected constitutional text that says the monarch has some obligation to act on behalf of the church (which, as I said above, has no independent life... it thinks what parliament tells it to think)

The church has a say in the making of law (the lords spiritual in the upper house) but once parliament's mind is made up, that is final

Church has lawful influence over some issues mainly abortion and marriage.
What "lawful influence"? Don't dodge the question, answer it
0
quote
reply
lucaf
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 years ago
#26
I would prefer that it were.
0
quote
reply
lucaf
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
(Original post by william walker)
Tradition doesn't help anything, it is pointless. Culture is what matters, do these traditions reinforce the culture.

No we no longer have the independent house of lords, it is controlled by the Commons now. The Monarch which refuses to use her power making the Monarch pointless. Yes families get to keep their titles, even their property.

Forward looking? What on earth does this mean. You mean government control of health and social care. You mean we allow people to be Gay and support them for being so, with threat of inprisonment and fines if we don't. You mean there are people who aren't culturally British and we tolerate and accept them, well that all sounds good. You mean new American technology and fashion.

So in closing the government controls what healthcare people get, people are forced to tolerate Gay people rather than accepting them, people of different cultures aren't forced to change to the mono-culture, rather they just have to accept laws they have no culture basis for supporting. Oh and we no longer create new world leading technology or fashions as we did.

Well this paints a picture of a very weak, culturally divided and opressive country. This is what secular progessive liberalism causes.
if by "controls what healthcare people get" you mean "makes sure everybody actually gets healthcare", and "people are forced to tolerate gay people" you mean "doesn't let me discriminate against people based on my irrational prejudices against their sexuality", then yeah that's about right.

What a **** hole, I would much rather live somewhere that lets its poor die of treatable ailments and lets me be be as much of a **** to gays as I like! :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 years ago
#28
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
Nonsense. The Church has no life that is separate to that of the state, it is a part of the state and subject to parliamentary sovereignty like the rest of the country. Parliament has always taken a deep interest in the affairs of the Church, up to and including even the order and particular words of the liturgy.

It seems you are rather unaware of just how activist parliament was in regulating the church in the 19th century. The monarch has absolutely no obligation (or even a constitutional right, really) to block legislation on abortion and marriage. It sounds like you've never even heard of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857

The church thinks what parliament tells it to think. That's how an established church works. End of story.



Because the monarch realises that would be completely inappropriate and cause a constitutional crisis.



My dear boy, you seem completely confused. How is the legislation of parliament subject to the church? Please point to a single, respected constitutional text that says the monarch has some obligation to act on behalf of the church (which, as I said above, has no independent life... it thinks what parliament tells it to think)

The church has a say in the making of law (the lords spiritual in the upper house) but once parliament's mind is made up, that is final



What "lawful influence"? Don't dodge the question, answer it

Yes but the Church has the Monarch the sovereign at its head. Which means it has protection from the sovereignty of Parliament. Yes parliament has always taken a deep interest in the Church and the Church in parliament, which means every single British PM being a Protestant member of the Church of England.

Oh no I am perfectly aware of Parliaments power grab in the later 1800's with the progressive era. However I wasn't aware of the act in question. The act in question though had the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury and many other Bishops within the Church. So I wouldn't have any issue with it. The Monarch has the freedom to do so as the Fount of Justice and Law which comes from the English Language bible and the Monarch's role as defender of the Protestant faith. I am going from the English bill of Rights, the Monarchy did refuse to sign acts into law or send them back to Parliament to be changed.

Well the Church doesn't accept immoral marriage and much of the post 1945 anti-marriage acts passed by Parliament. So the Church doesn't just do what the Parliament wants far from it.

Our constitution is the Protestant England language bible, it is the basis for law. Within the English bill of Rights the Monarch can as I said refuse to sign acts or send them back to Parliament. Also it would be wholly appropriate for the Monarch to live up to her role as defender of the Protestant faith.

I never said the Monarch had an obligation, just that the Monarch has the power to do so.

The Protestant English language bible is the basis for law, it is the role of the Church of England to defend it. So the Church has lawful influence over some issues to defend the moral basis for law.
0
quote
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 years ago
#29
(Original post by lucaf)
if by "controls what healthcare people get" you mean "makes sure everybody actually gets healthcare", and "people are forced to tolerate gay people" you mean "doesn't let me discriminate against people based on my irrational prejudices against their sexuality", then yeah that's about right.

What a **** hole, I would much rather live somewhere that lets its poor die of treatable ailments and lets me be be as much of a **** to gays as I like! :rolleyes:
No I mean it makes sure it controls peoples healthcare. Not everybody gets healthcare or even has access to it with procurement limits for drugs. So I think I have soundly defeated your argument. Oh and would you say the dentist is healthcare?

No I mean the government forces people to tolerate Gay people with fines and threats of inprisonment. I discriminate against Gay and other people discriminate against me as a disabled person. I don't want the government deciding what people can and can't do on their own property or force me to associate with people I don't want to allow on my property for whatever reason.

People do die if treatable problems, many of them wouldn't if they had to pay for it. Poor wouldn't die if people gave money to charities or hospitals rather than the government. Yeah where I would be a **** to Gay people and Gay people could be a **** to me, where we just accept it and move on. Me not trying to change them and them not trying to change me using government force.
0
quote
reply
lucaf
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 years ago
#30
(Original post by william walker)
No I mean it makes sure it controls peoples healthcare. Not everybody gets healthcare or even has access to it with procurement limits for drugs. So I think I have soundly defeated your argument. Oh and would you say the dentist is healthcare?

No I mean the government forces people to tolerate Gay people with fines and threats of inprisonment. I discriminate against Gay and other people discriminate against me as a disabled person. I don't want the government deciding what people can and can't do on their own property or force me to associate with people I don't want to allow on my property for whatever reason.

People do die if treatable problems, many of them wouldn't if they had to pay for it. Poor wouldn't die if people gave money to charities or hospitals rather than the government. Yeah where I would be a **** to Gay people and Gay people could be a **** to me, where we just accept it and move on. Me not trying to change them and them not trying to change me using government force.
You do realise you can still get private healthcare in the UK right? If you think the NHS is limiting you then feel free to pay and get better elsewhere. It isn't perfect but the fact remains that the current system means the least fortunate do not have to choose between their health and their rent if they get sick. If you see no problem with denying people who can't afford it basic healthcare, then congratulations on being an ********. I am sure as an allegedly disabled person you have never benefited from the NHS. :rolleyes:

And what exactly are the government forcing you to do with gays?
0
quote
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 years ago
#31
(Original post by lucaf)
You do realise you can still get private healthcare in the UK right? If you think the NHS is limiting you then feel free to pay and get better elsewhere. It isn't perfect but the fact remains that the current system means the least fortunate do not have to choose between their health and their rent if they get sick. If you see no problem with denying people who can't afford it basic healthcare, then congratulations on being an ********. I am sure as an allegedly disabled person you have never benefited from the NHS. :rolleyes:

And what exactly are the government forcing you to do with gays?
No you can't get private healthcare outside the major cities, which also have the best NHS hospitals because of demographic payments. Else where is 80 miles away from where I live and I would still have to pay NI and income tax for the NHS aswell as my own healthcare costs. You mean the poor, yet the poor still do have to choose between feeding their children and rent in many places, which they get taxed on again. No their healthcare should be paid for before they get sick using different healthcare plans. Yes I see a problem with it which is why I would give grants to hospitals in my local area and charities, that is if I didn't have to pay taxes. I want to help people as best I can giving them choice will do that medium-long term.

No I am disabled because the NHS didn't take care of me when I was born. They moved me around from the poor hospital in my local area to the larger hosital 80 miles away when I nearly died, then they said they had no beds in that hospital and moved me back, 3 days later I nearly died again causing brain damage and they sent me back to the large hosital. My parents had no say in the matter, my healthcare was decided by people who didn't know me or my family or care about me because they were getting not benefit from me staying healthy. It was all just about numbers, not means.

They are talking people to court for not accepting gay people, like that B&B.
0
quote
reply
lucaf
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 years ago
#32
(Original post by william walker)
No you can't get private healthcare outside the major cities, which also have the best NHS hospitals because of demographic payments. Else where is 80 miles away from where I live and I would still have to pay NI and income tax for the NHS aswell as my own healthcare costs. You mean the poor, yet the poor still do have to choose between feeding their children and rent in many places, which they get taxed on again. No their healthcare should be paid for before they get sick using different healthcare plans. Yes I see a problem with it which is why I would give grants to hospitals in my local area and charities, that is if I didn't have to pay taxes. I want to help people as best I can giving them choice will do that medium-long term.

No I am disabled because the NHS didn't take care of me when I was born. They moved me around from the poor hospital in my local area to the larger hosital 80 miles away when I nearly died, then they said they had no beds in that hospital and moved me back, 3 days later I nearly died again causing brain damage and they sent me back to the large hosital. My parents had no say in the matter, my healthcare was decided by people who didn't know me or my family or care about me because they were getting not benefit from me staying healthy. It was all just about numbers, not means.

They are talking people to court for not accepting gay people, like that B&B.
right, because health insurance plans work so well for poor people in countries like america right? And you might give to charity, but in the end not enough people feel that way for it to make a remotely adequate substitute. If you make healthcare something you have to buy then the poor will suffer for it, there is no way you can deny it.

And while I am sorry for what happened to you, that is was a cockup and nothing more. Mistakes happen no matter how your healthcare is funded. I do not see how that would have been any different if your treatment was being funded by your parents health insurance instead.

So if I owned a B&B and refused to let you stay because I don't like disabled people, you would be ok with that?
0
quote
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 years ago
#33
(Original post by william walker)
They are talking people to court for not accepting gay people, like that B&B.
No, the Government is doing nothing in that regard. The owners of the B&B were taken to court by the people who they refused service to. The judges (at various levels) decided that the action the landlords took was unlawful, but only after the wronged couple took them to court.
0
quote
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 years ago
#34
(Original post by lucaf)
right, because health insurance plans work so well for poor people in countries like america right? And you might give to charity, but in the end not enough people feel that way for it to make a remotely adequate substitute. If you make healthcare something you have to buy then the poor will suffer for it, there is no way you can deny it.

And while I am sorry for what happened to you, that is was a cockup and nothing more. Mistakes happen no matter how your healthcare is funded. I do not see how that would have been any different if your treatment was being funded by your parents health insurance instead.

So if I owned a B&B and refused to let you stay because I don't like disabled people, you would be ok with that?
Healthcare in the US is so costly because the government regulates it and cause monopolies with government programs like medicare and medicade, also now Obama care which isn't bring prices down just making the middle class and younger people pay for the increase.

We should't have any government involvement at all. We people using not only healthcare insurance but other means aswell to improve their healthcare. Like family care, collective care, independent hosital insurance to name a few.

Well I must ask myself why other people will not give to charities or hospitals to help the poor people. People used to give to hospitals and charities mainly the Protestant Christians. I as a Protestant Christian would do so to help people to improve their own lives and make more money which they could give to me. It is a selfish thing on my part to give to hospitals and charities, but other people only think short term.

If you make it something people have to pay for they will have great self interest in keeping healthy and looking for the best option for their families. Rather than the government putting everybody into the same system. Now the government is having to ban things or price them out of the market using taxation because it can't afford to pay for peoples healthcare.

It wasn't a cockup the city 80 miles from where I live has more people so more government funding, simple as that. It was always going to happen under the NHS. Yes mistakes are made but you had a choice the mistake is on you or your parents. In the NHS my parents where powerless to do anything and recourse took 13 years. If my parents had signed something with a private company recourse wouldn't have taken 13 years. My healthcare would have been different because peoples jobs would have been on the line if they made any mistakes and my family could have paid to get me better healthcare, I am talking about my whole family, not just my mother and father.

I wouldn't be happy about, I would feel very hurt. However I can do the same to them in my business if I so wish. I would just have to get over it. As I do other times.
0
quote
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 years ago
#35
(Original post by Drewski)
No, the Government is doing nothing in that regard. The owners of the B&B were taken to court by the people who they refused service to. The judges (at various levels) decided that the action the landlords took was unlawful, but only after the wronged couple took them to court.
Which they were only able to do because of EU law accepted by the Parliament and supported by the government.
0
quote
reply
lucaf
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 years ago
#36
(Original post by william walker)
Healthcare in the US is so costly because the government regulates it and cause monopolies with government programs like medicare and medicade, also now Obama care which isn't bring prices down just making the middle class and younger people pay for the increase.
no, healthcare is expensive in the US because a) individual hospitals have low bargaining power with suppliers compared to the NHS so drug companies can charge more than they do here and b) because insurance companies try to pay out as little as possible so hospitals jack up prices because they know the insurance companies will barter them down (which screws things for uninsured people, who haven't got that bargaining power and so have to pay the extortionate prices)

We should't have any government involvement at all. We people using not only healthcare insurance but other means aswell to improve their healthcare. Like family care, collective care, independent hosital insurance to name a few.
which once again completely ****s all over the poor who can't afford those things. And personally I would rather have my healthcare paid for a system that is at best neutral to my health than by insurance companies who have an active stake in avoiding paying wherever possible.

[quote]Well I must ask myself why other people will not give to charities or hospitals to help the poor people. People used to give to hospitals and charities mainly the Protestant Christians. I as a Protestant Christian would do so to help people to improve their own lives and make more money which they could give to me. It is a selfish thing on my part to give to hospitals and charities, but other people only think short term. [quote] yes people used to give money to charities, and it was completely insufficient so we set up the NHS instead.

If you make it something people have to pay for they will have great self interest in keeping healthy and looking for the best option for their families. Rather than the government putting everybody into the same system. Now the government is having to ban things or price them out of the market using taxation because it can't afford to pay for peoples healthcare.
so nobody has self interest in staying healthy for its own sake? :rolleyes: even if people were soley motivated financially, the poor already have an incentive to stay healthy because they can't afford to take time off work. And insurance companies too will refuse to pay for certain drugs and treatments because they consider them more expensive than necessary


It wasn't a cockup the city 80 miles from where I live has more people so more government funding, simple as that. It was always going to happen under the NHS. Yes mistakes are made but you had a choice the mistake is on you or your parents. In the NHS my parents where powerless to do anything and recourse took 13 years. If my parents had signed something with a private company recourse wouldn't have taken 13 years. My healthcare would have been different because peoples jobs would have been on the line if they made any mistakes and my family could have paid to get me better healthcare, I am talking about my whole family, not just my mother and father.
the hospital in the bigger city was going to have more funding under whatever system! And I think you are overestimating how much more choice you would have had in a private system (if there are no beds there are no beds, no matter how you are paying them), and recourse would still take forever if you were suing a private hospital.

I wouldn't be happy about, I would feel very hurt. However I can do the same to them in my business if I so wish. I would just have to get over it. As I do other times.
well personally I would rather live in a society where people can't get away with being bigoted morons.
0
quote
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 years ago
#37
(Original post by lucaf)
no, healthcare is expensive in the US because a) individual hospitals have low bargaining power with suppliers compared to the NHS so drug companies can charge more than they do here and b) because insurance companies try to pay out as little as possible so hospitals jack up prices because they know the insurance companies will barter them down (which screws things for uninsured people, who haven't got that bargaining power and so have to pay the extortionate prices)

which once again completely ****s all over the poor who can't afford those things. And personally I would rather have my healthcare paid for a system that is at best neutral to my health than by insurance companies who have an active stake in avoiding paying wherever possible.


so nobody has self interest in staying healthy for its own sake? :rolleyes: even if people were soley motivated financially, the poor already have an incentive to stay healthy because they can't afford to take time off work. And insurance companies too will refuse to pay for certain drugs and treatments because they consider them more expensive than necessary




the hospital in the bigger city was going to have more funding under whatever system! And I think you are overestimating how much more choice you would have had in a private system (if there are no beds there are no beds, no matter how you are paying them), and recourse would still take forever if you were suing a private hospital.



well personally I would rather live in a society where people can't get away with being bigoted morons.
Yeah the insurance companies do their job to try and get the best balance between healthcare and cost, they can't just allow people to die because they lose money. They then send people to non-profit hospitals, however these are few and far between because people won't or are unable because of taxation to give more money to them. I don't understand why costs can't be kept down somewhat by people paying for their own healthcare and the poor can't also get healthcare through charities.

I would much rather pay £5,000 a year for better healthcare than pay £4,200 a year in NI and get the NHS. I would also give another £5,000 to non-profit hospitals in my area. I am really more interested in quality rather than cost, the NHS is not very good and has a monopoly on the healthcare market where I live and a near monopoly in every city. I also have 3 employee's I would be willing to take care of.

They don't have an active interest, they break their contact you can sue them and get payment. The problem is with the US their legal aid isn't very good and people can't get it. In the UK we can and it should be increased. Very few people can afford good legal aid, that is why the companies can get away with it.

Nobody has self interest to stay healthy if it means you can't do what you want. It takes other insentives to do so, social pressure, finanical pressure. Look at smoking people don't giveup until they have social pressure from their family members or finanical pressure. The poor also can't afford to go to the gym, eat better food and are under more pressure than better off people, they also for the most part have more dangerous jobs. Which is why people should have social pressure to give money to charities so their healthcare is free.

A tree just fell on someone who used to work for me and he broke is neck, the same thing happened to him as what happened to me when I was born. My uncle just fell off his wagon and broke his back, the same thing happened to him. His son got burns on his face at work the same thing happened to him. So my case wasn't just a one off it is normal. People can't pay to improve the healthcare here because the NHS taxes them and has a monoploy on healthcare, you can't do anything but tolerate it.

No cities of 300,000 people shouldn't have better healthcare than counties with the same number of people. Yes but alteast I would have a choice and have responsibility for that choice. Funny there were no beds until in near died again though. Years likely, but not 13 years. As my parents would have a contract with that private hospital.

I would rather live in a culture in which people can be as bigotted as they like and still people refuse to use government force against them.
0
quote
reply
lucaf
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 years ago
#38
(Original post by william walker)
Yeah the insurance companies do their job to try and get the best balance between healthcare and cost, they can't just allow people to die because they lose money. They then send people to non-profit hospitals, however these are few and far between because people won't or are unable because of taxation to give more money to them. I don't understand why costs can't be kept down somewhat by people paying for their own healthcare and the poor can't also get healthcare through charities.
no, insurance companies (being driven by profits) will avoid paying out wherever possible. This happens for every kind of insurance, and is widely recognized as a factor in why american healthcare is so expensive. And no matter how much you go on about it charity will never be sufficient to provide those who need it with healthcare. People do not give to charity because of taxes, but if you get rid of the NHS then they will not give money to charity because they need to pay for health insurance instead. No matter how you spin it, the poor are much better off with the NHS, and the rich can still pay to go private.



I would much rather pay £5,000 a year for better healthcare than pay £4,200 a year in NI and get the NHS. I would also give another £5,000 to non-profit hospitals in my area. I am really more interested in quality rather than cost, the NHS is not very good and has a monopoly on the healthcare market where I live and a near monopoly in every city. I also have 3 employee's I would be willing to take care of.
good for you but not everyone is that altruistic.

They don't have an active interest, they break their contact you can sue them and get payment. The problem is with the US their legal aid isn't very good and people can't get it. In the UK we can and it should be increased. Very few people can afford good legal aid, that is why the companies can get away with it.



Nobody has self interest to stay healthy if it means you can't do what you want. It takes other insentives to do so, social pressure, finanical pressure. Look at smoking people don't giveup until they have social pressure from their family members or finanical pressure. The poor also can't afford to go to the gym, eat better food and are under more pressure than better off people, they also for the most part have more dangerous jobs. Which is why people should have social pressure to give money to charities so their healthcare is free.
hospitals struggle with funding when people are forced to give it through tax, do you seriously think that they will get enough to give people free healthcare through charitable giving? Especially taking into account the inevitable price inflation that switching to an insurance based system would bring.


A tree just fell on someone who used to work for me and he broke is neck, the same thing happened to him as what happened to me when I was born. My uncle just fell off his wagon and broke his back, the same thing happened to him. His son got burns on his face at work the same thing happened to him. So my case wasn't just a one off it is normal. People can't pay to improve the healthcare here because the NHS taxes them and has a monoploy on healthcare, you can't do anything but tolerate it.
What do you mean the same thing happened to them?


No cities of 300,000 people shouldn't have better healthcare than counties with the same number of people. Yes but alteast I would have a choice and have responsibility for that choice. Funny there were no beds until in near died again though. Years likely, but not 13 years. As my parents would have a contract with that private hospital.
I guess with a less dense population they need to spread things out. And it is called triage, more critical conditions get priority and that wouldn't be any different in an insurance system (unless you could pay to get priority over poorer people in more critical condition, but I don't think we want to go there)

I would rather live in a culture in which people can be as bigotted as they like and still people refuse to use government force against them.
well you would, because you are a bigot.
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (129)
18.48%
No (422)
60.46%
Not really bothered about them (147)
21.06%

Watched Threads

View All