The place of private healthcare (2 Viewers)

[Iron]

Sickness that curbs religious freedom | The Australian

The ACT government is attempting to bully Catholics into selling Calvary Hospital - an excellent and viable hospital which can easily continue operating. Ofc, there is some public subsidy received and the government is threatening to end this if a surrender is not made.

The issue apparently boils down to the government's disagreement with the church on certain ethical practices - esp Calvary's refusal to perform abortions when the life of the mother is not threatened.

The ACT government operates another very large public hospital where abortions are already available.

We're not talking about 'voodoo cures' and suggestions to 'pray disease away'; it's a valid view that the foetus is in fact a human life and worth defending. Imo the public should have the option to entrust their health to an organisation that has such a clear moral conscience about the well-being of persons - rooted in our most cherished beliefs; namely that in God.

Is this government justified in trying to aggressively squeeze Catholics out of healthcare, or does the Catholic Church have a right to provide healthcare to the community under its own moral framework, as it does in schooling?

 

[Lentern]

Trendy and progressive.

 

[Iron]

friendless and homosexual k

 

[Lentern]

Jesus is my friend and if you let him he'll be yours as well.

 

[Iron]

So anyway
It's a bloody outrage! I'm gunna take this str88 to the pryyyme ministaaa

I cant believe I voted for these filthy devils!

 

[John McCain]

The government has every right to choose which organisations they fund, and to do so to fit their own political and ethical agenda.

They're not denying them the right to exist, only the provision of funding, it's completely fair.

Such is democracy. The majority have spoken in favor of a government that is hostile to subsidizing perverse catholic practices. Suck it up.

 

[Iron]

It will cost them much much more to run it themselves m8. They would have to take it over. It's vindictive ideological madness

 

[Lentern]

The government has every right to choose which organisations they fund, and to do so to fit their own political and ethical agenda.

They're not denying them the right to exist, only the provision of funding, it's completely fair.

Such is democracy. The majority have spoken in favor of a government that is hostile to subsidizing perverse catholic practices. Suck it up.

Yes but this hospital would have made long term financial forecasts under the assumption that the government would would provide the subsidy as they had previously indicated they would. When this hospital decided to undertake whatever it does with the government subsidy the government never indicated it was temporary or conditional and now through their inconistancy are going deny people the right to halal autopsies. Seriously aside from not having abortions what makes a hospital catholic?

 

[John McCain]

A substantial minority of libertarian internet aspies want the government to fund a health care facility that practices euthanasia, abortion, the unrestricted distribution of all drugs.

Not only does the government refuse to subsidize this (not that they'd want public funding regardless), they go to extremes to ban it outright.

Do you support libertarians right to provide healthcare to the community under their own moral framework?

Staging this discussion as though you're supporting individual choice and the right of people to practice their own moral framework is bullshit.

It will cost them much much more to run it themselves m8.

Assuming a private institution can't replace it.

 

[Planck]

If you take the funding from the Government you follow their rules.

Stop taking the funding, do your own thing.

 

[Planck]

A substantial minority of libertarian internet aspies want the government to fund a health care facility that practices euthanasia, abortion, the unrestricted distribution of all drugs.

Not only does the government refuse to subsidize this (not that they'd want public funding regardless), they go to extremes to ban it outright.

I want my healthcare facility to provide euthanasia and abortion, I want my local coles to stock drugs.

Jesus, Richard, get it right.

 

[Lentern]

A substantial minority of libertarian internet aspies want the government to fund a health care facility that practices euthanasia, abortion, the unrestricted distribution of all drugs.

Not only does the government refuse to subsidize this (not that they'd want public funding regardless), they go to extremes to ban it outright.

Do you support libertarians right to provide healthcare to the community under their own moral framework?

Staging this discussion as though you're supporting individual choice and the right of people to practice their own moral framework is bullshit.


Assuming a private institution can't replace it.

If the government doesn't want to subsidise it fine but dont let it set up a budget that relies upon the funding then pull the rug without any warning.

 

[Iron]

Seriously aside from not having abortions what makes a hospital catholic?

A devotion to life out of service to God rather than personal prestige or wealth. The status of life is the issue of the age. Who's better qualified to bring new life into the world, cure the sick and see that the incurable die with maximum dignity than the institution that has been unwavering in its defence of life?

This is not an argument that all health should be given to Catholics lol. It's a discussion about whether the community should have a right to choose (within reason) who will see to their health.

It was decided long ago that private schools have a valid place in the community and that they should, in some small part, be supported by government. In the long run, it's cheaper for the government to give a little money to Catholic schools than to fully fund every educational institution - in fact, it couldnt do it! Parents also should be able to decide (within reason) what kind of focus their child's education should receive.

Why should this be any less significant when applied to an institution which oversees both births and deaths?

 

[John McCain]

Yes but this hospital would have made long term financial forecasts under the assumption that the government would would provide the subsidy as they had previously indicated they would. When this hospital decided to undertake whatever it does with the government subsidy the government never indicated it was temporary or conditional and now through their inconistancy are going deny people the right to halal autopsies.

I currently work as an insulation installer. For the past six months, the government has been offering a $1600 subsidy (which was a total rort tbh), which means free ceiling insulation for most houses. The government promised this scheme would go for 3 years, many many people have invested tens of thousands into new insulation businesses.

Last week, on coalition demands, the government suddenly said "fuck the hundreds of businesses that will fail, subsidy is being reduced to $1200, 14 days from now, no notice at all".

The company I work for has paid for a new, complete container, and no one is going to want insulation when it's not free. Many people will go out of business.

Governments always shaft people and ruin lives with legislative changes. They shouldn't publicly fund hospitals, insulation in the first place, this is the correction we had to have.

 

[Iron]

A substantial minority of libertarian internet aspies want the government to fund a health care facility that practices euthanasia, abortion, the unrestricted distribution of all drugs.

Not only does the government refuse to subsidize this (not that they'd want public funding regardless), they go to extremes to ban it outright.

Do you support libertarians right to provide healthcare to the community under their own moral framework?

Staging this discussion as though you're supporting individual choice and the right of people to practice their own moral framework is bullshit.


Assuming a private institution can't replace it.

Yes I happen to believe that doctors shouldnt be forced to cater for the wanton, destructive desires of a few 'internet aspies'. They are there to cure people of things that would otherwise harm them.

But I accept that in the case of abortion, some view the foetus as nothing but a 'parasite', which they should have no obligations towards and which threatens to make them sick and inconvenience their life etc if it is allowed to develop. I conceed that this isnt an easy issue and that some very clever, independent people will take the pro-choice view. This is a tragedy and, so long as our objections are heard, it is between them and their maker.

But frankly i'd say that my right to be treated by an institution which takes a much more serious approach to life and agrees that it is a sacred, priceless thing is very important. If I had a serious illness, I would have much more peace of mind knowing that those treating me arent more or less ambivalent as to whether I live or die - to whom I would be one of many 'problems' which they are only required to try and cure because that's what theyre paid for

 

[John McCain]

I want my healthcare facility to provide euthanasia and abortion, I want my local coles to stock drugs.

Jesus, Richard, get it right.

How easily you forget, the local coles can easily facilitate euthanasia and abortion.

Yes I happen to believe that doctors shouldnt be forced to cater for the wanton, destructive desires of a few 'internet aspies'.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. You're the one arguing for choice, so you should support the right of doctors who choose to practice euthanasia. Not the practice itself, but the right to choose, as you expect me to respect the right of catholic doctors to practice unusual medical practice.

Of course you have a right to be treated by a catholic institution. The hospital is free to continue to operate. Which is more than can be said for institutions that follow my moral framework.

 

[loquasagacious]

If you take the funding from the Government you follow their rules.

Stop taking the funding, do your own thing.

Everyone has to pay taxes though which raises the issue that Iron is compelled to pay taxes but if the ACT Government takes over Calvary hospital he would not be able to extract the some of the benefits for which taxation is supposedly levied. Certainly if one existed he could attend a non-government hospital however if he did he would effectively lose whatever percentage of his taxes was notionally for health care.

It seems that some kind of health voucher system would be better than direct funding of hospitals.

 

[Iron]

How easily you forget, the local coles can easily facilitate euthanasia and abortion.


No one is forcing anyone to do anything. You're the one arguing for choice, so you should support the right of doctors who choose to practice euthanasia. Not the practice itself, but the right to choose, as you expect me to respect the right of catholic doctors to practice unusual medical practice.

Of course you have a right to be treated by a catholic institution. The hospital is free to continue to operate. Which is more than can be said for institutions that follow my moral framework.

No the government has a clear agenda to see the hospital taken out of Catholic hands - whatever the cost. They will withdraw their funding (which is no where near 50% afaik) and the Catholics will be forced to hand it over to them.

But my argument isnt just for the choice of 'consumers'. It's also for the Drs and nurses that run the place. Calvary is Catholic - it employs Catholic professionals. These professionals are good people of conscience who will never consent to something like abortion without bloody good reason. Where are they to go? Not Canberra, that's for sure. The bulk would rather skip town. And still the government is unmoved. With all their knowledge and experience, they should not be forced by a political organisation to engage in what the world's largest religious institution describes as murder - let alone be employed by a public hospital that sees no problem here whatsoever

 

[Planck]

How easily you forget, the local coles can easily facilitate euthanasia and abortion.

What do you mean can? Coles now stocks "You'll love coles" steady grip Coathangers and You'll Love Coles Nembutal.

Testimonial for Coathanger: "Cleans those hard to reach places"

Testimonial for Nembutal: "For when you just can't get to sleep"

 

[Iron]

charming, classy etc