Indy, in the case of smokers I believe they should get a free government subsidised coffin when they cark it at 50, under the not so universal 'Coffincare' program.

"Cigarette smoking generates as much as $170 billion in annual health care spending in the United States, according to a new study. The study found that taxpayers bear 60 percent of the cost of smoking-attributable diseases through publicly funded programs such as Medicare and Medicaid."

"In Australia, smokers impose about $318.4 million in net costs on Australia's healthcare system. Depending on rainfall, smokers also cost the taxpayer about $150 million a year in bushfire control. Tax on cigarettes nowhere near covers the health and other costs caused by smoking. If correct tobacco tax covers part of the tangible costs, but none of the intangible costs such as lost productivity. Same for alcohol.

To Paul1405.

If what you say is true about politics being run by moderate politicians that is an encouraging point. But I'm no longer sure this is the case. There are extremes in the world of politics, even extremes that hold a good deal of power or even international pressure such as the UN trying to force an agenda of open borders on all nations instead letting each nation agree or disagree to it on their own terms. Regarding domestic politics I hope what you say if more often true then not, that politicians are not extreme but are trying to serve the people in the best way they can. However even that I doubt completely, because of how often corruption gets into the picture with politicians. Regardless, as a general rule I have to hope and believe that politicians are as you say they are and functioning to make a stable workable government.

That said though, I think the terms of left, right, or anything else are applicable terms for no other reason then we use them often and place value in those terms. Look at the discussions and debates in OLO and you can see the value in those terms when one person identifies themself or others as left or right and argue strongly based on that point and that point alone.

My main point about the underlying philosophies of progressive and conservative are both lacking something within the frameworks of their philosophies. Left is stronger if 1) the policies put in place are considered how they will work in conjunction to the people and the government they effect; and 2) if the policies and philosophies are held accountable. Right is stronger if the philosophy of generosity is culturally cultivated to support the needs of the community that lower taxes will neglect. Center (moderates?) are held to a stronger foundation if they don't compromise on everything but instead stand firm when it is needed.

To SteeleRedux.

My political leanings are not going to be yours. If you want to find fault in them I'm sure you will be able to based on them not being your own. That isn't the point or the intention I had when starting this subject. It isn't to fight over universal healthcare or any number or other political issues that we can agree or disagree on. It was about the underlying outlooks and arguments of left, right, and center.

That said, I will answer your question.

<<Are you able to, without qualification, categorically state you fully support a government run, universal health scheme covering all Australians so they can access free, quality medical health care?>>

I want to support universal healthcare, but when you add "without qualification" that forces my hand to a "no" answer. There are several concerns with universal healthcare that come to mind, even though yes I would want everyone to have access to healthcare when they need it, or even to prevent something from becoming a health issue.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Making it affordable without it collapsing is one of the major issues. Issues like overuse by one family, rehab needs for drug overdoses or drug uses have already been brought up and are worth the qualification measuring the universal healthcare system. One more is that if there are two options that are both free one more expensive and more lab testing, the other less expensive. Then the more expensive approach will be used more often then not. It comes down to the patient wants the best care available, and the doctors often will want to get paid more for a more expensive procedure. Without adding issues of drug use or taxes used per patient, this alone can burst the system of free universal healthcare. If it's free and universal, there needs to be something in place to make it dependable and sustainable so that when people do depend on it, it's still there when they need it.

Once again though healthcare is not the primary point I was trying to address in this topic. Though it is an example of left supporting it by the idea of it without qualification of how it will work or function. Which was part of the points that I made of a weakness of the left.

Paul1405,
I think you'd make a great example for highlighting the need to improve education & mentality.