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