"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...


The problem with this whole thing is that it fundamentally changes the
relationship of citizens to the government; your comments regarding the
Howard government sort of reinforce that. What this kind of program does
is change us from citizens to subjects, making us dependent upon the
government for a very basic need. Future debates then no longer revolve
around freedom, they revolve around the cost of the health system, what
special interest groups get funded, what rationing is applied to what
unfortunate group of citizens. [Yeah, I know, the statists will cry that
the health insurance companies do that now. The fact is however, that if
one doesn't like what a health insurance company determines, there are
alternatives. At worst, one can leverage one's personal assets and get a
loan for the needed treatment. When government says, "no", the answer
based on the 2000+ page Pelosi/Obama-care bill is "NO".]

The above almost exactly typifies what I was saying 20 years ago - and
believed. Passionately. However, the world didn't end, Australia continues
to prosper and we are still only spending 9% of GDP on health care under
government control.
I preface the following by saying that I understand that none of it may have
any relevance to the US situation, - just sharing my experience and point of
view.
What caused me to change my view? It wasn't my concern for the health and
well being of my fellow man. (I'm truly not that nice a human being.) It
was economic benefits, something I haven't seen raised in this debate.
Sick people can't produce wealth and pay taxes. Those who can afford to,
will generally care for their health and remain productive longer and return
to the workforce sooner. People without the means will not seek medical
intervention until they are at crisis level and perhaps not even then.
It becomes a chronic cycle. They fall by the wayside. Also, in my private
view, that contributes to crime by the desperate and underprivileged.
Government control of the system has seen a huge swing in emphasis, from the
treatment of acute symptoms, which is what occurred under the private
system, to preventative medicine as a large part of the mix. That has and
will continue to do, more towards lowering costs than anything along with
the spin off of increased output per capita.
This country has, even today, a desperate shortage of skilled workers. Every
sick day incurred is a loss we cannot afford. Keeping the population healthy
makes a much sense to me as the rationale for sevicing your motor vehicle
regularly. It's efficient and pays dividends.

At the end of the day, on a personal level, what freedoms did I give up? I
still have a choice of private health care. I still can have any medical
procedure that is not offered under the government system using the same
means you referred to above. Insurance and my private means.
Cost? My taxes increased. My insurance premiums fell dramatically. On
balance, one cancelled out the other. What about the bludgers?, (leeches
feeding off the taxpayer.) There seems to be no greater or lesser number of
them than there always were. I sure as hell would like to see them weeded
out, but it would seem that are and always have been, an inevitable part of
any society.
Financially, my income is far better than it has ever been. I still have
every single one of the freedoms I had before. My fellow citizens are
healthier overall because of it and therefore, so is the state of the
nation. For 9% of GDP, against your 15%.

Maybe we're just cleverer. ; )

Overall, on reflection, I think that what I did give up, was merely an
illusion.


diggerop