Re: Public Health Care (was Re: More Green Party)

From: Brian Atkins (
Date: Sat Jul 01 2000 - 13:05:12 MDT

That's fine if you believe that- but what if you didn't believe it? Why
should you be forced to contribute to that system? Why not have an option
to not contribute and also be denied access to it? It's like the government
has chosen a religion for you, and you have no choice but to worship it.

Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 07:03 AM 1/07/00 CEST, Waldemar Ingdahl wrote:
> >... the wealthiest in society ...can still choose and demand quality,
> since they have the money
> >to pay for the service twice. Once for the coertive service, that they don't
> >use, and second for the REAL service.
> I'm sure everyone is finding this discussion as numbing as I, although
> perhaps for different reasons. Still, I feel obliged to make a couple of
> points:
> The `unreal' or `coercive' service (publicly funded) is clearly of benefit
> to *everyone* since:
> the rich, as I noted (at least in Australia, maybe not elsewhere) often use
> their access to large tax-funded hospitals and their specialised machines,
> staff, etc;
> doctors tend to be trained in these hospitals, and in Oz at least they get
> their education at public universities;
> late industrial civilisation benefits immensely by having almost all its
> citizens reasonably healthy, immunized, ready for work and not falling
> about in the street, which is perhaps best ensured by health services
> readily available to everyone--just as it is sensible to have as many
> people as possible able to read, count, calculate and wipe their arses, not
> just those whose parents are prepared and able to pay for instilling these
> skills on a private basis (even if that is a better way to go for those who
> can and are willing to do so).
> Damien Broderick

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:33:47 MDT