In a message dated 5/18/00 11:32:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

>  Doesn't seem that most Americans are not interested in this type of health
>  care system.  It does seem that most Americans *in Congress* aren't
>  interested, though.  Would the large wads of cash given to Congressmen and
>  Congresswomen by HMOs have anything to do with that?

   No.

>  >   One may have a right to spawn but one does not have a right to demand
> that
>  >one's neighbors provide for and raise one's spawn.  Perhaps you would
> explain
>  >the logic of placing the demand on your neighbor that she pay for your
>  >actions.
>
>  Sure.  It's called "society".

> I don't use almost any of the roads in
>  Australia.  Why should I pay for them?

    I don/t know, Alister.  Do you think you should? Are you and your
neighbors receive an economic benefit from roads?

>  Why should I help pay for my
>  neighbour's actions?  Because in a fair society we would help people before
>  they starve to death.
>  Allowing a child to be brought up in poverty is a
>  less ideal situation than allowing a child to not grow up in
>  poverty.
>  Helping pay for childbirth is better than having people die
>  during home births for lack of competent medical carers
>  What about this
>  don't you understand again?

   Well, let's see if you understand, Alister.  Do you understand that there
are responsibilities incumbent upon the individuals that make up the social
construct called "society"?  Do you understand that a "society", that is to
say a community or a group, consists of individuals who agree daily (perhaps
grudgingly) to interact because it provides each with a benefit that is
unavailable outside of the group.  But in doing so, the individual is not
expected to become a burden to the group.  In short she carries her own
weight.  This is the principled norm, but for those who are unable to meet
this standard, the community assumes the unfulfilled obligations of that
individual.  It should be considered the exception -- not the norm and
certainly not a 'right'.

>  I've dealt with it.  I'll do that by realising quite how evil your system
>  is, and doing my bit to make sure we never get that bad.  Happy?

    Quite.  And if you and your fellow Aussies do not want to emulate the US
system then more power to you.  I doubt if there are even a handful of
Americans that give a rat's patut about what type of health care system you
and your fellow citizens elect to have.  It's your business.  I always marvel
at the intolerant religious sense of moralism that pervades much of the
socialist crowd -- especially the fundamentalist-like extremism of
anarchists.:-)

>  > >  This would be that preventative routine health care that they can't
>  > afford?
>  >
>  >     Well Duh!  It wouldn't be an issue otherwise would it?
>
>  I'm amazed you even recognise it as a problem.  After all, if you can
>  afford the care, who cares about anyone else?

    If I could not recognize the problem I would not have brought it up,
would I, Alister.  What is interesting is that people such as yourself have
such a distrust and contempt for the working class that you think that unless
you can employ the fascist tactic of using the policing powers of the state
to expropriate money from your fellow citizens they would not voluntarilly
contribute to a solution for those who cannot afford preventative health care.
Yours,
Issodhos