We have had universal health care in Australia for nearly forty years now, so I'm not really sure what this has to do with us.

Kate, how do you conclude this? Who has this "right" is who is obliged to provide it?

Kim,
How about basic human right of all humans?
How about an obligation by all humans to one-another?

Michael, what is the authority for these alleged "human rights"? What person/body is responsible for ensuring these "human rights" and against whom?
What is the source of your claim that *i* or anybody else has 'obligations' to every other human on the planet?

While we have had universal health care (UHC) in Australia for quite some time now, there are still aspects of care that are not affordable or attainable by everyone. I speak from experience of living in a remote area and illness meant long journeys, much time off work to travel to receive care and expensive travel/accomodation if one had no friends or family near where they received treatment. That issue in itself is complex.

However, stepping outside Australia, it is still a human right that EVERYONE should be able to access affordable healthcare in a timely manner. This is a right held by ALL humans, as resolved by the UN late last year (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/L.36): "reaffirming the right of every human being to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, without distinction as to race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition...". It is recommended that UHC be implemented by policy made via each individual nations national health body. It is well recognised that each nation will each have its own underlying factors influencing the determinents of health and this needs to be recognised in providing UHC.

Kate, if you choose to live in places doctors and health professionals don't want to work, that is your choice. Suck it up, or move.

Kim,
You come up with some of the most puerile responses.
Why are you doing this?

Kate are you seriously saying that as an Australian citizen, you think the World Bank or United Nations is the more legitimate body to decide how to spend our taxes than the parliaments we democratically elect every three years? That is really weird. And scary.

I believe we are discussing UHC as a global concept, not just as an Australian concept. As a global concept I believe the UN (along with WHO) are well placed, legitimate bodies to make recommendations in relation to UHC. The World Bank would be well placed to advise on financial systems and funding of UHC. And considering that the UN DOES recommend that each nation should decide how to run its own system (as each nation has differing health needs, values and wants from UHC) I don't find it weird or scary at all.

Michael

Kim Darcy is echoing the far-right views of groups like the American Tea Party or in Australia The Institute of Public Affairs. Basically groups that have been bought and paid-for by the super rich who would prefer tax dollars to be spent on them rather than the bulk of the population.

Right-wing libertarians like Darcy imagine that they are great thinkers who have discovered universal truths - the reality is that they are crude propagandists for the 1%.

Oh Mike, you've blown my cover. Damn! Yep, that's me, jack-booting through all the public hospitals, stomping on the "99%", while I do the bidding of Neoliberal, Zionist, Imperialist, Tea-Partying IPA reading Neoconservative, Creationist, Chrissy Swan watchers.

Kate, what I found weird was not that the UN or World Bank say anything, but that you, as an Australian citizen seem to accord these bodies with greater legitimacy over how Australian governments should spend taxpayer money, than the actual Australian Parliament. That's what I find scary. How many more of my fellow citizens are so willing to hand our Treasury over to unaccountable, invisible, foreign, bureaucratic gnomes in Geneva?

Oh that's right Kim. I forgot. You fancy yourself as a great independent thinker - it is just coincidence that your views are in lockstep with the IPA.

Although to be fair to Chris Berg and the IPA they would apply more sugar coating to the following statement.
"Kate, if you choose to live in places doctors and health professionals don't want to work, that is your choice. Suck it up, or move."

They would say effectively the same thing but use the words "freedom", "free market", "free choice" more frequently.

Mike, as I have no idea who these people are, I'll just have to watch from the sidelines. And yes, people who choose to live in humpy hellholes millions of miles away from cvilisation can hardly expect civilisation to run to them. Yuk! So, they really do have to suck it up Or move.