Very true, Joe. The missions gave heaps to those people. It's a shame that the good doesn't get remembered a bit more, but I guess it is human nature to take civilisation for granted, which brings me to my concern with the article. The author thinks that the health of Australians is something to be proud of: What bull. Australians have substantial dietary and lifestyle problems which are impacting adversely on their health. And do people instinctively know what to do to improve their lot? No. That only comes from being educated. Similarly, remote communities need education about lifestyle and diet as much as they need better health services.

"Does someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day have an equal entitlement to health as someone who doesn't, and why?"

If by health you mean access to a doctor and care to reduce suffering and cure disease then yes they deserve whatever is needed. The same as sportspeople who deliberately go out and smash their bodies up in pursuit of a shiny trophy. The same as people who continue to drive cars despite the fact that thousands of them will end up dead and maimed every year. The same as soldiers who go off to war where people shoot at them and try to blow them up. The same as we save anyone who is lost in the bush or at sea.
It is because we are civilised humans and not barbarians willing to see others suffer when we can relive that suffering. It is called altruism and is a very common aspect of "human nature".

The real question is by what possible method do you justify the withholding of treatment to anybody? Talk about your "death panels".
Where does it end Peter? Smokers? Drinkers? The obese? People with disabilities? Stupid people? People with a lower IQ than you?

See what a dogmatic belief in the absolute truth of capitalism does to you. Turns you into an inhuman psychopath who only worships money and efficiency. People dont matter.

"Capitalism knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."

1. If people's own voluntary behaviour is what gives rise to their need for other people's services, they don't "deserve" to be able to use force to obtain those services.
2. enabling some people to force the costs of their own risky or unhealthy behaviour onto other people who avoid such behaviour because it is riskly or unhealthy, will only worsen the health outcomes of both categories.
3. if you think people morally deserve to have other people pay for their unhealthy or risk-taking behaviour, and those other people don't agree, then it is you and everyone who agrees with you who should pay for it, not everyone who doesn't.
4. why does what people deserve stop at the border? Human society doesn't. Why isn't everyone in the world equally entitled to have other people forced to pay the costs of their own unhealthy behaviour at the same standard of those in Australia?

But perhaps if you keep mouthing anti-capitalist slogans, and keep up your mind-reading and personal abuse you'll make for a better world?

Peter

What about a woman near the end of her childbearing years having a Downs Syndrome child? Should she be denied health care? Perhaps it would be a good idea to have compulsory preventive education courses? At the end of each course the attendee could sign a declaration that he now knew how to prevent various medical ailments and would forgo the right to free medical treatment for them.

As mikk suggests, isn't the compassion we show a measure of our civilisation? And it might also be common sense. Why, for example, do less than 5% of the population have the potential to become addicts? If at some time addiction becomes a treatable ailment, the denial of free medical services for such people may be looked upon as our civilisation views attributing disabled children to divine punishment.

Another problem with denying people free health care for poor lifestyle choices is the difficulty of making objective measurements. For example, how would you estimate the saturated fat consumption of a person and determine whether or not that was enough to void free care? How many cigarettes would you allow people per day? How would you police this? And what about passive smokers? Then there is the question of why government should allow the sale of tobacco, alcohol, and crappy fast food, when they are known to be damaging peoples health?

Regulating peoples lives would be an administrative nightmare. I think it is easier to be compassionate.

It is fake compassion that is based on force and threats.

So you're responsible for everyone in the world except yourself?