 |
 |
Hi Dennis, Dennis Greene wrote: > >In fact most > participants in the debate quite happily tolarate the alternate > point of view - it is just being asked to fund it that sticks in the > craw. Tolerance has a cost, like most things. This man is being penalised for having an opinion that is a bit extreme (I do not agree with it). There are limits, I do not believe he has crossed them, and it strikes me that the ultimate consequences stemming from the principle applied by the social security decision (forcing -coercion through an economic sanction in this case - someone to have medical treatment against their will) is the thin end of the wedge leading to genetic testing etc etc. We are all probably going to take more out of "the system" than we put in. Let this man who is no fraud (as described) have some support from the social system he supported by contributing in the good times. > > David further argues that having paid into the system everyone > has the right to claim against it. True, but only if they meet the > criterior. The right to assitance carries with it the responsibility to > do what we can to help ourselves. I think the criterior are wrong in this case. I agree that people have a responsibility to help themselves but not by "forcing" them to have a particular form of medical treatment (just think of the wider implications of that). > Finally, David argues that the dissenter is claiming against an > 'insurance policy' into which he has paid. Very apt. But I doubt > any insurance company would part with a cent if the claiment > failed to exactly meet the terms of the policy. This is a National Insurance and as far as possible should cover everyone regardless of colour, creed or beliefs. Being a national system, bad principles can be modified, as well as being a just system that for instance does not refuse or try to find anyway it can to cancel or fail to renew a policy when it has been called into use. Just as there are fraudulent claimants, there are demogogic officials who forget they are public servants. Have you read the small print of the social security? Regards David