Homeopathy is useless and unethical

[Malachi]

Kasz216 said:

Malachi said:

Kasz216 said:

Akvod said:
So... I don't see the room for discussion?

While I do agree Homeopathy is useless... there is plenty of room for argument and discussion.

For example, a lot of people are being denied their preffered way of treatment however are still forced to pay into a national healthcare plan. 

It'd be like forcing Christian Scientists or whoever those guys are that don't use hospitals into an insurance plan. 

Additionally, even if the effect is consistant with placebos... Placebos DO have an effect...

^^That ridiculous, if the majority think the governement shouldn't pay for it then nobody is going to pay tax for it and if the majority think the governement should pay for it then everybody is going to pay tax for it, that how democracy work. It work around the principle that it's morally more justifiable to impose the will of the majority upon the minority than the other way around, not upon the principle that every individual do and pay for what the fuck they want, that would be Anarcho-capitalism.

I don't think it is morally justifiable to impose teh will of the majority upon the minority.  That leads to a "Rule by mob" form of government. 

The most important thing a democracy must do is protect the rights of minoritys.

To deny someones choice in regards to something that actually effects if they live or not is quite problematic to say the least.  There are few more serious choices you can take away from someone.

People who choose alternative methods of healthcare then those provided should be alowed to opt out.  Currently I believe if you get your own insurance or do something outside of the NHS or get new insurance, you infact lose your NHS insurance, yet still have to pay for it through various taxes.

I didn't say that it was morally justifiable, I say that democracy was based on the principle that it was more justifiable than the other way around. Somebody need to decide, whatever it's the minority, the majority or the individual. If you think it should be the majority then you want a democracy, if you think it should be a minority(not meaning ethnic/religious here) then you want some form of technocracy/autocracy/dictariorship, and if you think it should be the individual then you want some form of Anarcho-something.

You can't have a democratic system where individual can decide to not pay tax for a system voted in and wanted by the majority, if you did that the system simply couldn't work. The only way what you want would work in a democracy is if you eliminate the public health system and take the government out of it completly. Whatever the individual want a system that has been voted in by the majority do not enter the equation here.

Your individual tax money may serve to pay for the constuction of a road the other side of the country, a road you will most likely never use, hell you may not even have a car, but the principle of a government is to bind together the resource of all the citizen together to obtain a more efficient and stable whole.

The "I only want to pay tax for what I use" kind of thinking is generaly shorthsigthed too, take my road exemple, you may not have a car and may not personaly use any road, so you ask yourself why you should pay their construction but the market you buy your food at, your boss and your coworker, the teacher at you children school, they use it and thus you too benefit from their construction, just not directly. That same way the individual who do not use the public health system still can indirectly benefit from it.