New Blog Post: Lifestyles of the Rich and the Homeless

[mallee]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with it. I wasn't saying there's anything right with it. I was asking why a Jewish hospital.

In England we don't have jewish or christian hospitals. We don't feel the need to name our hospitals after religious faiths.

Thinking about it it does seem odd to call a hospital Jewish, Christian or Presbyterian Hospital but they do that here, there are ALLOT of them here and, especially down toward the south and they name them after saints too, I assume this is a catholic thing.

Just in Boston alone,
St. Elizabeth's Hospital
Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital
Brigham and Womens
Boston Shrines Hospital
Franciscan Hospital
Jewish Memorial Hospital, anyway, that is a thought of how and why they arrived at these names tho way back then people were very religious is probably reason.

I personally don't care who saves my life, or operates on me, as long as they are medically qulified and are reasonably sure I'll make it through the surgery..lol they could be purple and from Alpha centaur.

http://www.handtransplant.com/patients/gerald_fisher/

[othellobloke]

Thanks for agreeing Mallee. It IS odd to name a hospital after a faith. Notice you don't see Muslim or Buddhist or Shinto hospitals. Mebbe Judaism and Christianity want more public exposure than other religions

[slapshotw]

My impression was that a lot of these hospitals were started by (either proactively or with donations), or administered by, specific institutions of faith when they were first created (probably in much smaller sizes) many years ago. But as they went from being small groups of a few doctors to being institutions with multiple departments, millions of dollars in equipment, and more buildings, the name stayed while any power the formerly affiliated church/synagogue/whatever had went away.

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

In England we don't have jewish or christian hospitals. We don't feel the need to name our hospitals after religious faiths.

Only the ambulances--aren't they St. John's?

Seriously, that's why I added the bit about the donations, because it occurred to me that this is another aspect of our U.S. health system that wouldn't be obvious to people from countries with comprehensive systems.

(Just as an M.D. ex-fiancee had trouble believing that during the four or five hours I once spent in a UK emergency room, nobody requested financial info of any kind. Or money. Or a credit card. Or a billing address. That "of any kind" meant absolutely none.)

[othellobloke]

Originally Posted by gwyneth

Only the ambulances--aren't they St. John's?

St John's Ambulance is a private charity - not a government run thingy.

[slapshotw]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

St John's Ambulance is a private charity - not a government run thingy.

That's exactly how it is in the U.S.--most hospitals aren't government run at all. They are private charities, and so get named after whatever the charity stands for. How is this any different than the St. John's ambulance you mention?

[othellobloke]

Originally Posted by slapshotw

That's exactly how it is in the U.S.--most hospitals aren't government run at all. They are private charities, and so get named after whatever the charity stands for. How is this any different than the St. John's ambulance you mention?

The difference is there aren't any hospitals for St John's Ambulance.

When we're sick, we go to an NHS run hospital WITHOUT a religious name attached to it - instead of having to worry about stupid things like 'can i pay to get the bullet hole in my throat fixed'... like you do in some countries. The healthcare system in the U.S is the only reason why I'll never visit the U.S for a holiday.

besides... naming a medical service after a saint is a lot different than naming it after a religion.

[kmaw]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

besides... naming a medical service after a saint is a lot different than naming it after a religion.

Not really, the saint is still part of a certain religion...

Going to St. Joseph's Hospital and Cityville Catholic Hospital is pretty much the same for me...

[othellobloke]

Originally Posted by kmaw

Not really, the saint is still part of a certain religion...

Going to St. Joseph's Hospital and Cityville Catholic Hospital is pretty much the same for me...

Some people will call it trivial.. but to a LOT of people it's not. Naming a hospital after an ENTIRE religion implies that it gives priority to adherents of that religion - to be quite honest I'd feel ill at ease walking into Rush Presbyterian in Chicago, but would not walking into Northwestern Memorial.

Religion in many countries in the world - the U.S too - should be kept out of everything in the public domain. It simply should not be there, and naming a hospital after an entire religion is as bad as the pledge of allegiance having reference to a nation under God.

In Christianity... people are canonised because of good deeds they have done, and not because they were 'good christians'.

[kmaw]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

Religion in many countries in the world - the U.S too - should be kept out of everything in the public domain. It simply should not be there, and naming a hospital after an entire religion is as bad as the pledge of allegiance having reference to a nation under God.

Then why do you keep pointing it out in here???

[slapshotw]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

The difference is there aren't any hospitals for St John's Ambulance.

When we're sick, we go to an NHS run hospital WITHOUT a religious name attached to it - instead of having to worry about stupid things like 'can i pay to get the bullet hole in my throat fixed'... like you do in some countries. The healthcare system in the U.S is the only reason why I'll never visit the U.S for a holiday.

besides... naming a medical service after a saint is a lot different than naming it after a religion.

How does your reply address my point, and how are they different at all? You said St. John's Ambulance is OK to be named after a religious figure, because it's a charity, not government run. I applied your same logic to hospitals. You said they are different because--well, you didn't really explain that point. They both give treatment to sick people regardless of religion. By your argument, all non-Christians should be scared of St. John's ambulance coming in an emergency.

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

to be quite honest I'd feel ill at ease walking into Rush Presbyterian in Chicago, but would not walking into Northwestern Memorial.

...presumably until you discovered that the latter was formed by the merger of a Lutheran hospital and a Methodist one, the combination later folded into the medical school of Northwestern University, itself a Methodist institution?

History - Northwestern Memorial Hospital - Chicago

And, uh, speaking of separation of church and state, when did the UK disestablish the Church of England and kick the bishops out of the House of Lords?

[othellobloke]

Originally Posted by gwyneth

...presumably until you discovered that the latter was formed by the merger of a Lutheran hospital and a Methodist one, the combination later folded into the medical school of Northwestern University, itself a Methodist institution?

Nope. It's not about the history - it's about the name, and what it implies.

Originally Posted by gwyneth

And, uh, speaking of separation of church and state, when did the UK disestablish the Church of England and kick the bishops out of the House of Lords?

Assuming you've done your research you'd know they haven't. The British parliamentary system isn't perfect, but I dare to say there's many better things about it than some federal systems.

[slapshotw]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

Nope. It's not about the history - it's about the name, and what it implies.

Again, you defended the ambulances before. How is the hospital any different?

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

Nope. It's not about the history - it's about the name, and what it implies.

So Rush-Presbyterian-St. Lukes, with no religious affiliation but a name that reflects its past, is not OK, while Northwestern Memorial, with an ongoing denominational affiliation, but a name that does not reflect it, is OK?

Also, wouldn't that logic rule out nurses in N.H.S. hospitals, many of whom are still titled "sisters"?

[othellobloke]

Originally Posted by gwyneth

So Rush-Presbyterian-St. Lukes, with no religious affiliation but a name that reflects its past, is not OK, while Northwestern Memorial, with an ongoing denominational affiliation, but a name that does not reflect it, is OK?

Also, wouldn't that logic rule out nurses in N.H.S. hospitals, many of whom are still titled "sisters"?

Imagine you're a devout Muslim... would YOU feel comfortable walking into St Luke's Christian Hospital? I wouldn't, and my muslim family members don't. You might call it petty, but millions don't. It's the NAME. Simple words have caused wars and millions to die. It might be a simple set of words to you, but it's not to others.

And no many of those aren't called sisters anymore. In NHS hospitals they're addressed as 'nurse' because of this very problem. Only the fogeys and poshtards address them as sister in modern times.

[GatorFord]

This seems to have gotten completely offtopic. Please take any personal stuff about religion and what charities you like to PM's or another off topic thread. Thanks!

[regentronique]

Originally Posted by GatorFord

This seems to have gotten completely offtopic. Please take any personal stuff about religion and what charities you like to PM's or another off topic thread. Thanks!

You are right GatorFord!

The main topic was about a rich company owner assuming a false identity to steal money from unaware innocent people on a false pretence to conduct a hidden childish and illegal experiment to satisfy a selfish need to gather personal informations and involving employes to corrupt themself in doing the same thing and finally turn all this in a unhealthy farce about people that are mostly in difficulties.

This situation is shamefull and if any of you have any spiritual values this is also a big sin...

Anyone not agreeing to this are unrespectfull of the United States Laws and have poor spiritual and human values.

Even if the money was finally returned to a charity institution, this is not excusing the way it was gathered and the reasons behind that. It was dirty money coming from a crime...

This comment come for a volunter who have given more than 20 hours per week in the last 22 years for the physically and/or intellectually impaired people in Canada and mainly in Quebec. Many of these disabled persons are trying to live a normal life counting on the people for charity, in the middle of those there will always be unhonest people abusing of the good heart of the donators. But if people are illegally asking money for personal reasons like Brent have done, it could cause a lot of harm by discrediting the value of giving for the humain needs of the honest people there.

People who did things like Brent have done, have already been prosecuted here in Quebec. Theses actions are immoral and illegal.

P.S. Like Gwyneth i consider that the good deeds of the past do not aleviate the bad actions that have been done.

[codesight]

http://home.usadatanet.net/~jimbo64/...trainwreck.jpg

[calum]

IMO it is wrong:

• The donators were tricked into donating with no idea it was going to a multi-million dollar company
• Real bums would not have got the money, so they might not be able to eat that night
• It is illegal (fraud)
• Very immoral

May I ask what exactly happened to the money raised?

Mabye the money that could have bought someone a meal that night went to a helicopter logo, WHCMS license or the santa hat on the live chat logo?

[codesight]

Lol, I doubt it Calum.

As Brent has stated, he gives out money to charity.

I highly doubt he gathered up all the money and went and got another server.

But... I'll digress as it's not my place to say, he can speak for himself, if he wishes.

[calum]

Yeah, I know but its just an example.

But still, what is someone wasn't able to eat that night because of it? I would feel bad.

[regentronique]

Thank you Calum for your intervention, it proove that there still some people with morality around here...

You are right about the fact that when someone donate to the first beggar it is highly probable that this person will NOT give to the next two or three other beggars afterward, meaning that many people could have suffered, from this, for a whole week...

[calum]

Thanks

I aggree, just because you did something good in the past doesn't mean that you can do bad now.

I love hostgator, their hosting is amazing, cheap and reliable. Everything about it is perfect, it is just this experiment that I didn't like.

[GatorBrent]

Name one person that was hurt from this? I can name people that were helped..........


1. A soup kitchen gets all the money raised. These kitchens are open to help anyone that is starving in houston. Saying someone starved from our 2 hour a day experiment is just plain ridiculous.

Either position could play that game all day......

What if someone's life was saved by them not having the money to buy the drug that would finish them?
What if their hourly wage dropped enough they decided to go get a real job?
What if someone that read this blog is now a wiser donator that will no longer donate money to bums who may or may not use it for drugs. The supervised money then saves a life?

2. A bum that chooses a dollar over a beer will get over $100. That makes it a 2x match of what we collected. I'm sure the people who gave us money would rather their money be 2x then 1x.

3. We actually hired someone that was about to become homeless as a direct result of this blog posting.

Go offer a non crazy homeless person in Houston that's holding a sign on the side of the road if they want a job. See what they say....
They'll say no because they get offered jobs every day, but make more being homeless. Other parts of the country might be different but our study was in houston.

Instead of hiding behind a computer and making up assumptions we did a real experiment and shared are results. We gave the advice to give the homeless food and clothing. Were we wrong to do this? Is it better to give them a buck that may or may not be used for illegal substances?