Mr O'Neil. I have to say, I do like to provoke people. I can't help it, I like a good rumbustuous debate. If a poke won't get one, I'll try a prod.

Nevertheless, it does seem to people outside USA that the value of everything to Americans is measured in dollars, and if a thing has no dollar value, then it is utterly worthless. A misconception, possibly, but almost as universal as some healthcare systems. Vide other Americans' comments in this thread.

The fact that a poor person owns his own house doesn't necessarily mean much. How much equity does he own in that house, by the way? And is that house no more than a timber construction twice the size of my potting shed, or is it a vast mansion set in grounds that expand over many acres? To get to the point, if he sells it, will it cover his medical bills, and, if it does, will he have somewhere to live after he has paid them?

But if, as you say, even the poor of America are wealthy, then why do you fear helping them out. They will be able to afford to contribute to the system as much as you will. They will be scrounging off you no more than you will be leeching off them. Please understand, despite what detractors say, national healthcare services are not free handouts to the dregs of society: everyone pays into it and everyone is entitled to draw upon it when they need to.

Furthermore, I believe that dubbing the American Health Care System (or the proposed one) as Kevorkian is a gross slander on the medical profession in America. If they are operating a triage system, it is to prioritise treatment by the degree of urgency, it is not to filter out those who can be "helped to die".


And that brings me on to Thorne's comments. Oh Thorne! What can I say? Should I say it in German? Wer sind die Untermenschen, die verdienen, zu sterben*?

OK - I'm not fluent, but I think you get my point.

How would you decide who gets healthcare and who doesn't? People without jobs don't? Or blacks, jews or communists, maybe. Perhaps you hate women. Or people earning less than $50,000. What is your criterion when you say there are people who deserve to die?

There but for fortune, Thorne. You do deserve to be crucified

And you also need to get it out of your head that you are being asked to give up any of your ill-gotten gains just to give other people who you consider beneath you a free ride. You are being asked to make a payment similar to a health care plan's premium - and instead of it - in order to obtain a full health care service run by or on behalf of everyone who participates. It's co-operation, not communism, and it's probably cheaper than what you pay Medicare - and you won't be excluded on the grounds of your parents' medical history, or because you have suffered from a particular illness before, or simply because your policy doesn't run to that much cover. You'll be entitled to the best the heath system can afford. I can see nothing wrong with the bum and the millionaire getting the best. But if the millionaire can afford even better, then let him have it, so long as he maintains his contribution into the health service.

It should be available to all, but the choice whether to use it must be a free one.

Likewise with a healthy food service or a public transport service. If these were thought desirable, then everyone would contribute to a food tax or a transport levy, and then everyone would leave their cars at home and ride to work for "free" eating "free" organic sandwiches. These ideas, have their merits, Thorne: good thinking!

I personally think there should be a national legal service where everyone could get legal representation, free at the point of delivery.

Finally, I think Belgarold has made a very pertinent point when he highlighted government's responsibility to look after the health of the nation as a whole, and that includes controlling the spread of disease.

Perhaps they should be eliminated.

Or they could be cured.


* Who are the subhumans who deserve to die?