1 People die everyday because they are over weight.
2 People die everyday because they couldn't afford certain medicines or an operation.
3 People die because they get old and government cannot prevent that.
4 People die because some liberal bleeding heart turned loose some criminal or rapest who then decided to go one step further.
5 People die of strokes, heart attacks, and lack of eating right.
There. I divided it up into different categories for you and added numbers. We wouldn't want to confuse apples and erasers, would we?
It may surprise you to know that there are a number of countries in the world not identical to North Korea, whose citizens would be shocked and disgusted by the idea that (2) might be allowed to happen in their country with any degree of frequency. You may need to get out more.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote: It may surprise you to know that there are a number of countries in the world not identical to North Korea, whose citizens would be shocked and disgusted by the idea that (2) might be allowed to happen in their country with any degree of frequency. You may need to get out more.
Exactly.
Moreover, the fact that (2) does happen in this country has created the desire to fix the system.
So Little Nipper and his ilk may be fine and dandy with people dying on the street due to lack of access to health care, but the desire to fix the system, in one way or the other, demonstrates that he is in the minority. Thankfully.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
LittleNipper wrote: It is when a guy gets Aids because he has been messing around, he shouldn't expect everyone else to pay his medical treatment bills. Charity care is one thing; however, charity is not for the government to embrace on our behalf.
Are you familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan...?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
LittleNipper wrote: It is when a guy gets Aids because he has been messing around, he shouldn't expect everyone else to pay his medical treatment bills. Charity care is one thing; however, charity is not for the government to embrace on our behalf.
Are you familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan...?
Are some religious only when it suits their values? The Good Samaritan is a perfect example of personal charity. The government was not involved in anything this Samaritan did for the robbed and beaten man.
LittleNipper wrote:Charity care is one thing; however, charity is not for the government to embrace on our behalf.
Upon what do you base this doctrinal-sounding viewpoint? The Constitution? Other founding documents? Personal revelation?
But it doesn't even matter where you came up with it. Since a government is a creation and reflection of its people, "proper government functions" are whatever we, the people, want them to be. If the majority of us want to use the mechanism of our government to help the downtrodden (we do), then that's what it should do.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
I have heard a few times a suggestion that if helping people is done in part by the government then that stops good people from having the opportunity to help individually and voluntarily. I am perfectly able to believe that voluntary private source charity is a good thing.It helps both giver and receiver. I can believe there is a virtue in the voluntary aspect of charity.
What I find puzzling is how government helping people prevents or makes more difficult the individual voluntary contribution. If a person thinks that the need has been covered by government then they have not looked around with charitable intention.
LittleNipper wrote: Charity care is one thing; however, charity is not for the government to embrace on our behalf.
This statement just doesn't make any sense to me. To help people government and private charity should both contribute.
I feel government should help establish an environment that encourages its citizens to contribute to the charities of their choice. The Federal government should not have choice. They are suppose to protect our freedoms and not be selective of them...
Littlenipper, I think you are welcome to contribute to which ever charity you would like. Neither I nor the government is preventing you from choosing and pursuing the charity you want.
LittleNipper wrote:Charity care is one thing; however, charity is not for the government to embrace on our behalf.
Upon what do you base this doctrinal-sounding viewpoint? The Constitution? Other founding documents? Personal revelation?
But it doesn't even matter where you came up with it. Since a government is a creation and reflection of its people, "proper government functions" are whatever we, the people, want them to be. If the majority of us want to use the mechanism of our government to help the downtrodden (we do), then that's what it should do.
The best way to help the downtrodden is to provide an opportunity to work and not give them money to survive. The majority does not wish to support the minority forever. And a very rich person can simply take his gold and run. Gone are the jobs and the opportunities when such happens.