I fell in love with a girl a few years back now. I fell in love with a girl who also was born with a genetic disease that spends its entire time trying to take her life. If it wasn't for the AMAZING miracle working surgeons I never would have known of her existence let alone met, and fell in love.

I would give anything to marry her when the time is right but really, I can't even talk about linking our relationship to her disease without fear of risking her life, or our relationship. Because of that disease she needed a double lung transplant. Because of that transplant she needs drugs that only a government can afford and thank the LORD ABOVE they pay for them. Thing is, if they find out we're in a relationship while living together she will lose her access to the government subsidy that pays for her life. We can never marry, less on her death bed. What a bitter sweet pile of [expletive] that will be but do you not do it KNOWING she will die practically straight after?

Imagine NEVER being able to marry because you will die if you do.

The best I can offer her is engagement but if she ever has to visit the government over her disease she HAS to remember to take that ring off or it will kill her ... literally.

We can't have kids ever either. An over-zealous surgeon saw to that. Our chances at surrogacy took a battering along with the gays as well. Will they give someone with a terminal illness a chance? They won't with adoption. They'll let a junkie destroy their off-spring before giving us a chance at loving that kid and giving it a decent life.

I'm annoyed beyond all measure of being annoyed about this, but what do you do? I don't have any answers other than there are people from ALL parts of society copping a shafting from the government as well, not just the rainbow community.

StG,

What a poignant story....but you have each other and you have love and you're "together".

In the end, that's what matters.

You're right, of course. But there's still that part of you seeing everyone else do these things as just a matter of course but being so unreachable for you.

Dear StG,

I'm not sure that I fully understand the complexity
of your problem. However, my heart goes out to you
and the lady you love. As Poirot has stated - at least
you do have each other, and you are together, and she's
right, that is all that matters. Love is the ideal
espoused by many religions. At its most spiritual, its
a state of grace that makes forgiveness possible.

Nearly all of us will love something or someone over
the course of our lives. It's hard to put into words, it
just is - something we feel, in our bodies, hearts and
souls rather than something we rationalise in our minds.

Opening ourselves to love makes us vulnerable to loss.
Many people particularly if they lost someone close
in their early lives, protect themselves from the pain by
keeping love and lovers, at a safe distance. Unfortunately
they miss out, and so does everyone around them.

You are fortunate to have found what you need to nurture
your soul and to give life meaning. Your love is the
wondrous, mysterious element in this relationship and
its not something that everyone has. Marriage isn't
compulsory in today's intimate relationships and of course
it is likely to occur less frequently in the future.
However, it's a fair bet that people will continue to fall
in love and try to find harmony together just as they
always have.

All The Best To You Both.

...Yours is a classic case of “self-pity” StG. If I understand your situation as outlined in the post correctly, you have an urgent need to be a bit more honest with the Government, before the dishonesty of non-disclosure of your secret de-facto relationship brings you both undone.

I looked yesterday, felt your hurt and mine.
Like some, that pain nearly stopped me posting mate.
I understand and support you both.
See your honesty is hurting you.
Some say nothing,not even here, just take what they can get.
I with all my heart ,wish we could progress Social welfare.
The scheme for the disabled will help.
But my often stated often confronted plea to end the fraud, true criminal fraud in this area.
Would allowed such as you two to live a better life.
I wish you both well.
And I wish, one day we get the courage to stop feeding fraud, so we can help the true needy.

Thanks Lexi.

Dan. lol No. Not even close, but thanks for trying to read into it.

Thanks Belly.

Dear StG,

As I wrote on the case of gay-marriage, relationships and marriage should be none of the government's business - they should stay right out of it.

Now StG, I just cannot see why you don't get married: you don't need the government's approval and official stamp, just have a religious ceremony and don't ever register it. Another option is to marry overseas and not inform the government here. What's the problem then?

There is still a gap which I don't understand: how does the withdrawal of a subsidy constitute a death-sentence? all it means is that medical expenses need to be met from other sources: health-insurance, family, charities, etc. It is really not nice to depend on government for your needs - wouldn't you prefer to receive support from others who want to give happily than from those who are forced to pay their taxes grudgingly? If the government stops paying for your fiance's medical expenses, just drop a note here with details where to send the money and I'll contribute my own share to help, just as I'm sure many other OLO members will.

Yuyutsu,
"It is really not nice to depend on government for your needs - wouldn't you prefer to receive support from others who want to give happily than from those who are forced to pay their taxes grudgingly?"

There is a difference between theory and reality. We don't live in a country where you can withdraw from paying those taxes and still take an active part in the legal economy. If StG plays by the governments rules he will still be paying taxes for treatment for those who quality based on the governments arbitrary rules.

I'd like the government to butt out of a lot of things, essential medicine (and treatment) which is beyond some peoples financial reach is not high on that priority list.

You have an point but the point becomes a something quite different when applied to the real world as it is today in this country.

The government plays dirty with means testing and the rules around spouses, giving to some who won't try to help themselves and withholding from others based on some arbitrary rules all the while taxing those who are supposed to look after themselves.

I agree with you in principle but when applied in the context of the way taxation and support is done in this country I very much disagree.

I'm possibly getting a little less concerned about what's taken from others grudgingly when I see the lack of interest by others in the harm done by CSA to those who end up on the wrong side of that rort.

R0bert

None of us earn what it costs for all the drugs to keep someone alive post-transplant such as with two lungs. I also mentioned she has a genetic disease. That has treatments of its own.

Charity only goes so far.

Thanks RObert.

Dear, R0bert,

<<We don't live in a country where you can withdraw from paying those taxes and still take an active part in the legal economy>>

And who does nowadays?

<<If StG plays by the governments rules he will still be paying taxes>>

It's not a crime to be robbed, but in this case StG and his fiance are (while they don't enter a formal relationship) on the receiving side, not the paying side. Receiving stolen goods, being partners in crime, or however you like to call it, receiving the money of others who were forced to part from it against their will, is not a good karma.

<<for treatment for those who quality based on the governments arbitrary rules.>>

Do you consider Australia to be unique in that regard? EVERY government makes arbitrary rules, it's in the very nature of governments to mechanise, streamline and treat us as objects of their power.

<<essential medicine (and treatment) which is beyond some peoples financial reach is not high on that priority list.>>

As a tax-payer I agree: I too have many higher priorities, but if I were to be on the receiving end of that money, I would have felt ashamed and tried my best to live without government handouts, without being stained by the money of others that was taken from them against their will.

The government plays dirty because people, their voters and otherwise, allow them:

If people had the dignity to refuse taking other people's money via the government, if they spat on it instead, then the government would have had to start begging people to take money and remove at least some of their arbitrary rules, but when everyone greedily jumps on that free-stolen-money wagon, no wonder they have a ball standing on top, feeling like king-kong waving his arms as if directing the traffic.

Dear StG,

<<None of us earn what it costs...>>

Generally true - that's why we should not be living day-to-day, why instead of hopping around in summer one should take hid of nature (including its statistical properties) and save for a rainy day.

That's also why you take insurance, with extended family as primary insurer. Without government interference, better and more suitable forms of health-insurance could havere developed, which government currently thwarts.

When all the above fails, the next option is charity.

Charity is good: it's not stealing, it helps the giver at least as much as the receiver, it gives them healthy pride and self-esteem, it encourages them to work more for giving more; and it gives them an avenue to make good for previous misdeeds.

With less tax, people will not only have more money to donate, but also feel more responsible for helping others and will be given the opportunity to gain the full benefits of giving. Naturally, donors will also avoid giving to those who are (unlike your case) not genuinely deserving, though technically are.

Yuyutsu, recent experiences with CSA are having a profound effect on my attitude to the law. I don't want to sidetrack the discussion with that here but I'm coming to the conclusion that the government plays so dirty when it suits that technical breaches such as described here are a non-issue.

The government pays for the medicine if you fall into an arbitrary category deemed worthy of help, if you fall outside of that because of something as dastardly as getting into a relationship you miss out regardless of you can afford the medicine or not.

There are too many cases where decisions are made on a very arbitrary basis that often is counter productive in terms of encouraging people to move on with life and make it better. Too many times when being responsible is punished in favour of being irresponsible.

Hiding a relationship status to continue to get access to medicine that you cannot otherwise afford which keeps you alive may be a breach but it's a far more justified breach than many of the governments quite 'legal' but unethical actions.

R0bert

Dear R0bert,

You are not side-tracking, your post is right on the topic!

The problems you describe are self-evident, but we can't fix the government as they are a perennial pest. One day we may storm the Bastille, but till then we need to help our friend StG regain his integrity.

In StG's unhealthy predicament he needs to:

1) Remain unmarried despite his loving and committed relationship.
2) Lie, or at least hide the truth, about his relationship.
3) Be a partner in crime to the government by accepting stolen money.

Problem #1 can be solved either by a clandestine religious ceremony or by marrying overseas.

Problem #2 is a result of bad luck, failing to meet the government's arbitrary tests. In theory he could try to change the government, voting for another party, replacing Tweedledum with Tweedledee, but we know how futile that is and that if a different government includes him in the "lucky" category, that will be at the expense of excluding others who will then become "unlucky".

Problem #3 is more serious. StG must be developing enormous guilt feelings for benefiting from the proceeds of robbery, of what is taken from others against their will (that on top of the guilt for hiding the truth). His self-esteem is damaged and in due course his conscience will torment him so much that he will seek to hurt himself. Assuming he has no funds of his own to pay for his fiance's health-care, assuming that he has no supporting extended-family, no wealthy friends and no insurance either, then his best remaining option is to appeal for charity and donations in order to release himself and his fiance from this terrible predicament. I suggested that he can do it right here, appealing to the OLO membership for help to finally release himself from a wretched and unwholesome life.

Are you asking the bloke to take his bride and jump from a bridge?
Any reasonable person knows we just would not get enough by our donations to impact on their lives.
I will be first to give and even if it hurts the last.
It is not the answer.
Even asking some to consider lighting the load GY and others have in providing our paddock to romp in sees some unwilling to help.
Costs of health care, even medications are some times extreme.
I would HATE to think we stop folk telling us their story's, in fear it would be seen as fishing for sympathy of any thing other than open discussion about such issues.
Lexi, once told us about an operation for cancer, she truly thought she may not survive the operation.
I have faced death a few times of late[well now]
She was subjected to the worst insults,from the worst by far poster I ever saw here[ I devalued it quite a bit for possible mental illness]
I keep this forever from my poor and hungry CHRISTIAN youth.
Everyone of us should try to help every one we can, no one should go hungry or without basics because of the INFLATED costs of health care and medicines.
IF we truly put every effort in to stopping real fraud in all welfare no sick person would need to hide their love by not wedding the one they love.
For a start thousands of Rich tax avoiders who could carry their weight.
ST G stay solid stay well stay in love.

Depending on what condition you have, medications are incredibly expensive - and without the PBS which is the Australian Government subsidy, they would be out of reach.

My daughter developed Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus just before she turned ten. Her pancreas just stopped making insulin. So for twenty years she has given herself four needles a day. That's a lot of insulin. I wonder how we could have afforded it without it being on the PBS?

Modern medical technology certainly delivers. People are alive that would have succumbed in times past. I was struck by that when my daughter was diagnosed, incredibly grateful that her condition was manageable (and she's doing very well in that)

StG, I echo Belly's sentiments - Stay solid, stay well, stay in love.

Dear Belly,

Thank You for your kind words and for your support
and understanding during that difficult time.
I survived and learned a great deal in the process.

Health problems did not go away - I still have
quite a few to deal with - however, strong family support,
and love makes all the difference in one's ability
to cope that's for sure - and of course I would be
in deep trouble - were it not for my private health
insurance (and some government benefits). We are lucky
in this country with what the government does provide.
It would be very difficult for many people otherwise.
Myself included. To StG, I wish you every possible
happiness - may your love engulf you and your lady
and keep you both safe, warm, and happy.

I know my socio economic back ground is far different than most.
But not broke living very well, in my not high living way.
My past was not so.
I have lived with helped and felt the pain, of folk who go with out prescription drugs every day.
Because they just can not pay the what 5 bucks?
Do we all know some actually do? eat tinned dog food?
In Australia?
Put your self on the pension, say single rent allowance and all, about $800 a fortnight?
Rent 240 to 340, A WEEK!
No need to add up, others stack pain killers they do not need high on the shelf.
Some try to smuggle boxes full out of Australia.
Some Vital medicines cost hundreds some thousands of dollars.
In thread after thread post after post I BEG contributors to look at the fraud so we can help the St G s of our world.
We who care must care for the right ones not the whole blindly.
St G those who do not care do not matter.
Those who care about you two do not care about the fraud you two matter nothing else.

It is very nice that StG's fiance, as well as Poirot's daughter and Lexi receive the medication and treatments they need. It is only THE WAY they receive those which is not nice.

If we base our life on the assumption that we are merely bodies, which need [expensive] medical treatment to survive, that we have no spirit, no soul, no conscience, no need for integrity, just a needy organism that must be satisfied, then the current system seems to be working. Yes, there are some minor hiccups: love can be frustrated and one needs to lie and steal, but that's OK so long as the organism functions, right?!?!?

Government and common-sense cannot go hand-in-hand.
Government and responsibility cannot go hand-in-hand.
Government and integrity cannot go hand-in-hand.
Government and truth cannot go hand-in-hand.

All that is because the nature of government is violence, because it asserts itself over people without their consent.
Just as in sex, consensual vs. non-consensual makes the difference between heaven and hell.

Yes, turning our back to the devil, clinging to love, truth and charity (pun intended) is, as Belly mentioned, like jumping from a bridge, it is an act of faith - and it IS very scary. Perhaps with the support of friends here it may be a bit less so.

Yuyutsu,

"It's only THE WAY you receive those which is not nice."

Actually I thought it was very "nice" that my daughter could be kept alive by injections of insulin (subsidized on the PBS), and balancing her exercise and diet, which in itself was challenging enough for a child.

You're rather strange and insulting.

Dear Poirot,

<<You're rather strange and insulting>>

Strange, perhaps, as I don't share the Western value-system that is commonly and blindly taken for granted in Australia - but it was certainly not my intention to insult. If anything, I am trying to help StG out of his sad predicament, and others too.

<<Actually I thought it was very "nice" that my daughter could be kept alive by injections of insulin>>

In my previous post I fully agreed with that, still agree and am happy for your daughter.

Your daughter should have gotten her insulin and exercise and diet in any case, there's no question about that, period, but why did she, in order to receive those, have to go through an immoral, corrupt and coercive institution (eg. the government), which by its nature must also be arbitrary? why did she need to become morally compromised, accepting tainted funds, only because she was ill? Surely you and your daughter would prefer to have the same insulin (and exercise and diet) WITHOUT the attached moral degradation and without other trappings such as the one that StG is reporting about.

StG tells us that his fiance can only get her treatment because she is unmarried. In the same manner, the government could have arbitrarily decided for example that your daughter cannot get her insulin because she is red-haired (just an example). If that happened, then your daughter would need to cheat and dye her hair black or blonde so the government will say "here, you can have your insulin". You just happen to be "lucky" while StG happens not to be.

Think also, for example, about those "unlucky" ones whose medication is not on the PBS list - one of my relatives actually needed an expensive medication that was subsidised, but not for her specific condition, nevertheless it was prescribed by her doctor and helped her tremendously. My family simply bought that medicine for her and paid the full price at the pharmacy. They didn't attempt to cheat though they could: that's far more respectable than taking other people's money without their consent.

Yuyutsu,

I take your points.

But your could say the same for everything we take for granted in modern society that is subsidised by the government: the road system, the water and sewage systems, electricity, gas, etc.....is it tainted to utilise these services because they are subsidised or fully provided by the government? Do you use any of these services or are you far too respectable to use the things provided by the government taking money and building things without people's consent?

Yes, StG's situation means that he and his love are lucky in one way and unlucky in another. Lucky that she is alive and they are together but unlucky in not being able to admit their relationship. I see their dilemma and don't blame them one iota for keeping it quiet.

I do think of people whose medication isn't included in the PBS. Your relative may have been lucky that s/he required a single or limited dose medication and that your family had the money to buy it. Some people don't have the money and require ongoing medication for life - and they value their physical existence.

Thanks Poirot. I don't think Yuyutsu understands there's people with hopes, dreams, heart aches, and lives behind all this.

My partner has watched every one of her friends die a horrible death. Every one that she knew as a kid as friends has died because they grew up in a hospital. She wants to love and live in part because those friends didn't get the chance.

We don't have a SINGLE pang of guilt over holding back information from whoever so she receives the care she deserves as a human. Call it what you want, but until you've walked in those shoes you really couldn't BEGIN to understand the complexities of living like these people do.

I could not care less the judgement of others as I know for a FACT that those that judge have no idea what they are saying.

While we're at it. Donate blood and organs, you never know if it's going to be someone you love that needs it. It could happen to you tomorrow.

"I don't think Yuyutsu understands there's people with hopes, dreams, heart aches, and lives behind all this."

StG I'm with you on this one but on the broader concept of taxes being taken under the threat of force I'm closer to Yuyutsu position.

There are "people with hopes, dreams, heart aches and lives beyond" what those who consider themselves fit to decide what others can afford to pay understand as well. The trade off gets messy, the only action that seems to incur responsibility to the community is the act of earning money. Those who do less of that for the sake of recreation are imposed on far less by the state as though everyone put in the maximum effort they could to earn money.

I'm with you because the the government plays so dirty with people, and when I say government that eventually falls back to voters who continue to allow them to get away with it. I don't believe that there is any morality in suggesting that your partners life should be put at further risk for a principle while the space you live in is dominated by a different principle.

Good luck with it.

R0bert

Dear Yuyutsu,

I feel obliged to set the record straight for your
information because you made a judgement that I find
inappropriate in your last post. Firstly I have paid
for all my treatments and medications. I have paid
for my private health cover for many, many years.
I have worked all of my life and paid taxes - very
high ones. I have never asked for anything from anybody
and I have never been on the dole. Neither has any of my
family members. To suggest that I am involved in some
kind of fraudulent behaviour is to say the least -
insulting as Poirot pointed out. The only government
help that I do receive is with one special medication -
that is available to me at a reduced cost (I still
pay for it) because I have a referral from a specialist
for it. (I pay very high fees to the specialist).

I would politely suggest to you - to find out the facts first
before you get up on your high horse and make judgements
about situations and people - you know nothing about.

You Sir, have gone down in my esteem.

Dear Poirot, StG, Lexi, R0bert,

I appreciate that people have hopes, dreams, heart aches, and lives behind all this. I also appreciate that for most people, if they or their family had a threatening medical condition for which nobody would offer support except a criminal bikie gang, then they would accept their support gratefully and feel indebted to that gang, even to the point of supporting and justifying its actions. We are all subject to human faults and weaknesses and I don't criticise anyone in person, only this wretched system whereby in order to receive appropriate medical care one needs to become a partner-in-crime with the government.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I'm afraid I don't understand to what
precise "crime" you are referring.
If you mean rorting the system in some
way - I don't see any of the people
you mention doing that - except perhaps
in your mind. It sound as though you
need to go and talk to someone. You
have a problem.

Yuyutsu,

Do you use the road network? Do you use a tap with clean running water? Did you pay for the entire network of the roads that you utilise? Did you pay and provide yourself with a water treatment plant to provide your own treated and safe water?

If you utilise government funded or subsided services and infrastructure as a matter of course, then your argument falls down.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Are you a pensioner?
Or do you receive any Government benefits at all?

Dear Lexi,

I am not a pensioner and don't get a cent from the government.
The government is taking our money without our consent - what do you call a person who does that? and what do you call a person who enjoys the proceeds of such money?

Dear Poirot,

What I get as my part in the way of water, roads and other infrastructure, is but a fraction of what I pay in taxes towards those services. I have no reason to feel bad about reclaiming a small part of my own money back and the government has set the infrastructure up in a way that forbids us to arrange for those services in any other way.

Yuyutsu,

"The government is taking our money without our consent - what do you call a person who does that? and what do you call a person who enjoys the proceeds of such money?"

Well, you might call him Yuyutsu, because Yuyutsu uses roads, water and other infrastructure provided by the government. Why do you think it's fine and dandy to recoup your taxes by using infrastructure, but you denounce others who derive government support for healthcare? Shouldn't they also be entitled to feel they "have no reason to feel bad about reclaiming a small part of [their] own money back"?

Dear Yuyutsu,

Parliamentary democracy means that Australians
participate in how the country is run and how
Australian society is represented. Through
regular elections and through open parliamentary
debate, governments are accountable to all
Australians. Elected parliaments are the only
bodies able to make our laws or delegate the
authority to make laws. Australians recognise the
value of laws as rules of conduct that are
established by elected governments and followed
by the community to maintain an orderly and free
society.

Everyone in Australia must obey laws established
by governments. Equally all Australians are
protected by the rule of law. This means that
no one is "above the law," even if they hold a
position of power, like politicians or the police.

We have a strong tradition of "mateship," in this
country where people help and receive help from
others voluntarily, especially in times of adversity.
Then also the government supports in the form of a
social safety net for those who struggle through no
fault of their own. This is part of Australia's
egalitarian ethos and an Australian value that is
highly regarded by most people.

If you have a problem with any of this - then you're
on your own. And you have to wear it. The majority of
Australians have decided on the type of society they
wish Australia to be. However, you are entitled to
take up your dissatisfaction with your Member of
Parliament.

Cheers.

Dear Poirot,

<<but you denounce others who derive government support for healthcare?>>

This must be a misunderstanding - I do not denounce anyone. I'm only trying to help because that predicament of having to take other people's money against their will, or being partners to that, is an unpleasant one and I would assume most people would want to do their best to avoid it if they can.

Dear Lexi,

I know very well about the foundations of democracy and how it operates - but that doesn't make it right.

The word "democracy" comes from Greek "demo"=people + "kratia"=rule. The "demo" part attempts to soften the "kratia" part, but "kratia" is still "kratia" and no one has the moral foundation to rule over others against their will.

If a group of people wishes to have a common rule of any form or shape over them, democracy included, then it's their undisputed right, but no collection of people has a moral right to do more than what the sum of those people may do individually. As no individual has a right to impose him/herself over others against their will, so also the group.

Apart from that, the Australian electoral system is so broken that one cannot even call it democracy.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You for sharing your opinion.
Mine happens to differ from yours.
And in this country under our
parliamentary democracy - we have
few reasons to complain. However
as I stated earlier any issues that
are bothering you - you can take up
with your Member of Parliament.

See you on another thread.

<<any issues that are bothering you - you can take up with your Member of Parliament>>

Prayer works better!

Dear Yuyutsu,

In that case I shall pray with you.
And hope that you will find what you
cannot find elsewhere - a peace that
is not of this world.

Take care.