Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Erm, the church is hardly the most open minded about such things. Heck the Vatican still doesn't allow women vicars let allone spending money on treating gay people and that uncertainty is my whole point. Sure some churches might be fine with it but get ill in a district with an ultra conservative church and you might not be in luck. Also if you are relying on charities what if the charities in a local area simply decide they don't like the look of you?
As I said in theory it might work but in the real world it just wont.
My proof is that some of them don't even let gay people in the church if they are openly gay so it wouldn't shock me if they refused to pay for someone's treatment. I'm not saying it does happen I'm just saying it's a possibility and that's way to risky if you are asking for a system where people rely on charity for something as basic as healthcare.
Coming from you that's quite stinging criticism given the hyperbolic stuff you spout. -
Do you honestly think expecting people to rely on charity will work for healthcare? I'm going to be honest here and declare that I distrust the church (all churches) to be impartial in who they do and do not pay for that care.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." -- Robert E. Heinlein
I work and I pay for my own healthcare through my taxes and the NHS is not the crap hole that Fox would have you believe so what are you on about?