From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Fri Jun 30 2000 - 23:30:03 MDT
At 07:03 AM 1/07/00 CEST, Waldemar Ingdahl wrote:
>... the wealthiest in society ...can still choose and demand quality,
since they have the money
>to pay for the service twice. Once for the coertive service, that they don't
>use, and second for the REAL service.
I'm sure everyone is finding this discussion as numbing as I, although
perhaps for different reasons. Still, I feel obliged to make a couple of
points:
The `unreal' or `coercive' service (publicly funded) is clearly of benefit
to *everyone* since:
the rich, as I noted (at least in Australia, maybe not elsewhere) often use
their access to large tax-funded hospitals and their specialised machines,
staff, etc;
doctors tend to be trained in these hospitals, and in Oz at least they get
their education at public universities;
late industrial civilisation benefits immensely by having almost all its
citizens reasonably healthy, immunized, ready for work and not falling
about in the street, which is perhaps best ensured by health services
readily available to everyone--just as it is sensible to have as many
people as possible able to read, count, calculate and wipe their arses, not
just those whose parents are prepared and able to pay for instilling these
skills on a private basis (even if that is a better way to go for those who
can and are willing to do so).
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:29:37 MST