Ofcouse it’s not completely free, it’s financed by taxes.
Completely free? Something is either free or it isn’t: “not costing or charging anything” — Merriam-Webster.
And what rights would a Danish Christian have in Pakistan?
Allright then, it is not free to someone who is paying taxes, I think it’s safe to assume that a 88 year old sick woman will not get a job, so for her it would be free as in gratis. Ok?
Like I said, if indeed the healthcare is free, then slavery there is an institution.
Are we not stretching the definition of slavery a bit?
blinx: *[…] she’ll also be eligible for the benefits that is provided by our social security system, such as free medical care. Not that I would mind that a bit of my highly taxed money goes to her, I’m just arguing that there is possibly more to it than the fear of her squirting out brown babies. *
Kimstu: Well, that’s true, blinx.
Liberal: What’s true about it? If the health care is truly free, then there must be institutionalized slavery.
What I meant is that blinx was right to point out that there are social impact issues other than fertility involved here. I was a little bit sweeping in my assumption that a postmenopausal elderly invalid who’s supported by her own family members couldn’t be a significant burden on the rest of society in some way.
As blinx has explained, s/he was using “free medical care” in its common usage as shorthand for “medical care that is funded by tax revenues with few or no fee-for-service charges.” Genuinely “free” medical care, as we all know, is provided by altruistic extraterrestrials. 
Sorry for the confusion.
Why do you have to turn every thread you enter into some libertarian word game?
I’m sure that if blinx promised to get a tee shirt made up with the words “Liberal is correct - free health care is not really free” and promises to wear it to work for a week, then Liberals sense of outrage will be mollified.
What’s that supposed tp mean?
Though what bearing this has on the elderly lady’s case, I’m not sure.
This part is especially appalling. I never imagined it was possible that an international couple could marry, and then not choose to live in either country. It’s unfair not only to the foreign spouse but to the native as well! It’s like the native of one country gets kicked out for marrying the wrong kind of spouse.
It’s simple economics. The more social services a gov’t provides, the more they have to be concerned with the immigration situation. Denmark has socialized medicine and generous unemployment and whatnot? Then obviously they need to be careful about who dips into that well, or the well dries out.
So if a government provides no social services, it should have open borders?
You are all very naive if you chosse to ignore what is going on. The fact is, there ia a very sophisticated industry in just about every 3rd world country, which specializes in forging documents, setting up asylum claims, etc., to get residence for people in 1st world countries. Denmark is desireable, because of its generous socila services…same with Sweden…but the Swedes have been cracking down lately.
In South America, the magnet is the USA. There is a book (obtainable in most SA cities) that tells you how to get into the USA, and what benefits are available once you get there. Of course, having a bay in the USA gives that child automatic citizenship, so there are huge numbers of pregnant women camped outside the border towns. It is a huge problem ,and getting worse, as economic conditions in the 3rd world deteriorate. I don’r blame Denmark at all, because if this woman is allowed to stay, word will get back to Pakistan, and you will have thousands of pathetic (and identical) cases to contend with.
Except for those who pay the taxes, I reckon.
Or earthly charity hospitals.
Liberal: Except for those who pay the taxes, I reckon.
But isn’t that a different type of payment from a “fee-for-service” charge, which is what the patient pays upfront for treatment? I understand the point that you’re making that taxpayer-funded medical care isn’t “free” in the strictest sense of the word, but that doesn’t mean that the name “fee-for-service charge” is an appropriate description of the taxpayer funding.
Liberal: *Or earthly charity hospitals. *
How is a charity hospital “free” in the strict sense of “not costing or charging anything”? Just like taxpayer-funded medical care, charity-hospital medical care is ultimately paid for by somebody.
Sure, in the sense that an extortion is a different type of theft than a mugging.
Because the benefactors are voluntarily giving away disposable income, and the beneficiaries are paying nothing.
Liberal: Because the benefactors are voluntarily giving away disposable income, and the beneficiaries are paying nothing.
Hmmmm, I dunno. You seem to be saying that something is genuinely “free” as long as those who paid for it wanted to pay for it. (I bought a great free book the other day! :)) By that reasoning, taxpayer-funded medical care is also “free” if the taxpayers want to pay for it. If only some of the taxpayers are contributing willingly, that would make the system “partly free”.
Too confusing. I suggest we go on using “free” just as a convenient shorthand for “taxpayer-funded or charity-funded with few or no fee-for-service charges”, or if that seems misleading, avoid the use of “free” altogether and just say “taxpayer-funded or charity-funded with few or no fee-for-service charges”.
After all, I figured that the point you were trying to make is that no human-provided goods or services are truly, totally free. Everything’s gotta be paid for at some point by somebody.
Esse quam videri. They aren’t paying for anything. Their economic praxis is the equivalent of throwing money in the trash. They get nothing. When they go to hospital, they pay.