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.