Originally posted by mikhael
You ignored the second half of what I said. It really goes hand in hand with what you quoted, and shouldn't be taken seperately.
No I didn't - I just edited it for brevity - what do you think the 2nd paragraph of my post was about? The NHS principle would be referring to said proper balance.
Originally posted by mikhael
I'll answer your question as if I only said what you quoted, however: You are always completely responsible for your own health and well-being. Bad things happen and you can't necessarily control when you get sick or what you get, but you bear complete responsibility for the medical care you require to become well again. [Side note: I firmly believe that everyone is responsible for their own well-being at all times, no matter what outside forces act upon them. Accepting--no taking--responsibility for yourself is the first step in controlling your life and fate. This is an absolute belief, which means it is not entirely practical. Practicality dictates compromise in this as in all things. Reality doesn't often allow people the luxury of absolutes. End Note]
I don't think you can really take responsibility of a random event like illness or accident. Under a system of paid healthcare, it means you need a vast amount of money just because of what might happen next time you step outside the door.
I can take & do take the best possible care of myself, but it's simply not feasible for me to cough up a few tens of thousands if some daft bastard hits me with a car. And if that said daft bastard can't cough up money in a civil action (which is a long-winded process hardly inductive to emergency care), then I'm still screwed.
Especially in the cases where the healthcare system itself plays a role in illness, which can happen....
Point being, there are some things which individuals cannot take full responsibility for, simply by dint of being human. One is random health problems (which are random and can be demonstratably down to outside influence), another example could be for example the police service (most/many people will never be affected by crime, but still pay taxes which fund said service - ditto military, fire service, coastguard, and many others).
So you can't measure individual benefit anyways; because a) you don't know if or when you'll need that service and b) you don't know what else that service has done to indirectly protect you (in the case of health - preventing a possible pandemic, or simply you having to do extra work because your colleague is off sick)
Originally posted by mikhael
Finally an observation: Goodness is relative. I don't recommend using it as a meterstick for anything that involves differences of political belief, social systems, religion, etc. I rather consider it a necessary evil that I pay taxes for other people's benefit, not my own. Others contend that taxes used for the benefit of the less fortunate is a good thing. Neither is actually good OR evil.
Obviously so. I'm just supporting my opinion of this; I'd say taxes are a necessary evil, but that the (my) measure of their 'goodness'* is in the application. So taxes for social welfare, healthcare IMO good, taxes for arms spending bad, etc.
*god, that's a crap word to use......
