Brilliant NHS

[JimC]

Sure, the cost was spread out amongst the taxpayers, in a way supported by the vast majority of Australians. It works reasonably well for us...

The point is this; we are a "mixed economy" in terms of medical practice. There are free public hospitals, but with waiting lists (other than emergencies like mine), and no choice of doctor. To avoid these, by having private health endurance, plus various other up-fron fees, you can go private with little waiting and your choice of doctor (which I would usually do in a non-emergency situation, BTW...)

Our Medicare subsidises about a third of the cost of a visit to a private GP, with pensioners fully subsidised.

The people at need of care but with little money can get excellent care in emergencies, which, to us, is extremely important.

Having said that, I'm sure that aspects of public health services can get bloated and inefficient in places, but intelligent management decisions should minimise that...

[Seth]

Sure, the cost was spread out amongst the taxpayers, in a way supported by the vast majority of Australians. It works reasonably well for us...

And the minority who object to paying for your surgery is enslaved to your interests. QED. Slavery works pretty well most of the time...except for the enslaved of course, but who cares about what they want?

The point is this; we are a "mixed economy" in terms of medical practice. There are free public hospitals, but with waiting lists (other than emergencies like mine), and no choice of doctor. To avoid these, by having private health endurance, plus various other up-fron fees, you can go private with little waiting and your choice of doctor (which I would usually do in a non-emergency situation, BTW...)

Our Medicare subsidises about a third of the cost of a visit to a private GP, with pensioners fully subsidised.

The people at need of care but with little money can get excellent care in emergencies, which, to us, is extremely important.

Having said that, I'm sure that aspects of public health services can get bloated and inefficient in places, but intelligent management decisions should minimise that...

The point is that your surgery was not free, and you said it was. Somebody else labored on your behalf without being asked if they were willing to be enslaved to your service in order to pay for your surgery. Most likely many individuals, which makes it that much worse. How do you justify enslaving even a single person who objects to laboring on your behalf? Your utilitarian argument that spreading the cost over all of society using coercive force works well for the majority is just a rationalization to avoid addressing the fundamental question at the bar, which is "what moral and ethical justification exists for forcing others to labor against their will in order to provide for your medical needs?"

It'd be nice if just one of you leftists would take an honest stab at addressing that core issue.

[MrJonno]

How do you justify enslaving even a single person who objects to laboring on your behalf?

When it comes to saving life (especially my own) pretty much everything is justified, anyone who can't see that just needs to leave and find an lsiand

[Seth]

How do you justify enslaving even a single person who objects to laboring on your behalf?

When it comes to saving life (especially my own) pretty much everything is justified, anyone who can't see that just needs to leave and find an lsiand

What if saving my life requires taking your life? You good with that?

And no, your life is not worth my being enslaved. Nobody's is.

[subversive science]

How do you justify enslaving even a single person who objects to laboring on your behalf?

When it comes to saving life (especially my own) pretty much everything is justified, anyone who can't see that just needs to leave and find an lsiand

I think Somalia is closer to the Libertarian paradise he desires.

[Seth]

How do you justify enslaving even a single person who objects to laboring on your behalf?

When it comes to saving life (especially my own) pretty much everything is justified, anyone who can't see that just needs to leave and find an lsiand

I think Somalia is closer to the Libertarian paradise he desires.

Somalia is an anarchy, not a Libertarian society.

[Tero]

There's a difference?

[JimC]

Sure, the cost was spread out amongst the taxpayers, in a way supported by the vast majority of Australians. It works reasonably well for us...

And the minority who object to paying for your surgery is enslaved to your interests. QED. Slavery works pretty well most of the time...except for the enslaved of course, but who cares about what they want?

The point is this; we are a "mixed economy" in terms of medical practice. There are free public hospitals, but with waiting lists (other than emergencies like mine), and no choice of doctor. To avoid these, by having private health endurance, plus various other up-fron fees, you can go private with little waiting and your choice of doctor (which I would usually do in a non-emergency situation, BTW...)

Our Medicare subsidises about a third of the cost of a visit to a private GP, with pensioners fully subsidised.

The people at need of care but with little money can get excellent care in emergencies, which, to us, is extremely important.

Having said that, I'm sure that aspects of public health services can get bloated and inefficient in places, but intelligent management decisions should minimise that...

The point is that your surgery was not free, and you said it was. Somebody else labored on your behalf without being asked if they were willing to be enslaved to your service in order to pay for your surgery. Most likely many individuals, which makes it that much worse. How do you justify enslaving even a single person who objects to laboring on your behalf? Your utilitarian argument that spreading the cost over all of society using coercive force works well for the majority is just a rationalization to avoid addressing the fundamental question at the bar, which is "what moral and ethical justification exists for forcing others to labor against their will in order to provide for your medical needs?"

It'd be nice if just one of you leftists would take an honest stab at addressing that core issue.

Given that virtually no-one in Oz thinks like this at all, and people from all sides of politics are happy with the system as is (aside from wanting minor tweaks), why should I give a shit what a loony libertarian from a country with appalling health-care thinks?

[Pappa]

Your utilitarian argument that spreading the cost over all of society using coercive force works well for the majority is just a rationalization to avoid addressing the fundamental question at the bar, which is "what moral and ethical justification exists for forcing others to labor against their will in order to provide for your medical needs?"

It'd be nice if just one of you leftists would take an honest stab at addressing that core issue.

I've been intrigued by that question (or its more abstract form) ever since I first saw you pose it several years ago. As yet I haven't seen an answer or rebuttal that I find satisfactory. The argument is morally/ethically similar to the reasons given for why we eat animals when we don't have to, except it's possible to opt out of eating meat, but not possible to opt out of paying taxes to support others.

[MrJonno]

How do you justify enslaving even a single person who objects to laboring on your behalf?

When it comes to saving life (especially my own) pretty much everything is justified, anyone who can't see that just needs to leave and find an lsiand

What if saving my life requires taking your life? You good with that?

And no, your life is not worth my being enslaved. Nobody's is.

If I have to sacrifice a few children to save my life I would, luckily we have taxation and a NHS so we don't have to make decisions like that. The great slave master is nature and we fight that through common endeavours like taxes

[mistermack]

Your utilitarian argument that spreading the cost over all of society using coercive force works well for the majority is just a rationalization to avoid addressing the fundamental question at the bar, which is "what moral and ethical justification exists for forcing others to labor against their will in order to provide for your medical needs?"

It'd be nice if just one of you leftists would take an honest stab at addressing that core issue.

I've been intrigued by that question (or its more abstract form) ever since I first saw you pose it several years ago. As yet I haven't seen an answer or rebuttal that I find satisfactory. The argument is morally/ethically similar to the reasons given for why we eat animals when we don't have to, except it's possible to opt out of eating meat, but not possible to opt out of paying taxes to support others.

You never will find an answer, because the question is based on a complete fallacy.
Morals and ethics are to do with right and wrong. Those things don't actually exist. You might consider something wrong. Others might consider it right. Which proves that right and wrong are just a matter of opinion. There are things that most people will agree on, but they are just a reflection of the consensus at the time.

If the consensus says we want to tax you, if you earn, and support people who don't, then it's ''right''.
People are free to disagree, and say ''that's not right''. Others say ''yes it is''.

They are talking about something that doesn't exist.

[ronmcd]

If the consensus says we want to tax you, if you earn, and support people who don't, then it's ''right''.
People are free to disagree, and say ''that's not right''. Others say ''yes it is''.

Exactly right. Seth's government - any government - create and amend laws all the time, affecting not just taxation. Seth's objection could equally be applied to any state law or federal law.

If Seth wants to rant about it, grand. If he wants to do something, maybe he should stand for election.

[Seth]

There's a difference?

A substantial one.

[Seth]

Given that virtually no-one in Oz thinks like this at all, and people from all sides of politics are happy with the system as is (aside from wanting minor tweaks), why should I give a shit what a loony libertarian from a country with appalling health-care thinks?

So when Oz voted on socialized medicine it was a one-hundred percent unanimity vote in favor? Somehow I doubt that.

[Pappa]

Your utilitarian argument that spreading the cost over all of society using coercive force works well for the majority is just a rationalization to avoid addressing the fundamental question at the bar, which is "what moral and ethical justification exists for forcing others to labor against their will in order to provide for your medical needs?"

It'd be nice if just one of you leftists would take an honest stab at addressing that core issue.

I've been intrigued by that question (or its more abstract form) ever since I first saw you pose it several years ago. As yet I haven't seen an answer or rebuttal that I find satisfactory. The argument is morally/ethically similar to the reasons given for why we eat animals when we don't have to, except it's possible to opt out of eating meat, but not possible to opt out of paying taxes to support others.

You never will find an answer, because the question is based on a complete fallacy.
Morals and ethics are to do with right and wrong. Those things don't actually exist. You might consider something wrong. Others might consider it right. Which proves that right and wrong are just a matter of opinion. There are things that most people will agree on, but they are just a reflection of the consensus at the time.

If the consensus says we want to tax you, if you earn, and support people who don't, then it's ''right''.
People are free to disagree, and say ''that's not right''. Others say ''yes it is''.

They are talking about something that doesn't exist.

I don't think it's got anything to do with ethics in that sense at all. It can be summed up easily. Why does a government have a right to compel you to do anything? Or put another way, what right do the majority have to tell the minority what to do?