undefined | Better HN

0 pointspurplelobster12y ago0 comments

Ironically, you're close enough to the truth. The only thing that stands in the way of dignified living for everybody is people like you. There is enough resources in this world (especially the US). Why should kids everywhere live in poverty, starve and not be given the same opportunity under the same conditions as more fortunate kids (well fed, good schools) because their parents couldn't find or hold down a job? Instead, kids grow up hungry and can't focus on school, and even if they want to, they live in a poor neighborhood with bad schools, perpetuating the situation for yet another generation.

0 comments

LekkoscPiwa12y ago

because we all know that then all kids would be hungry and not educated not only the poor ones. Somehow socialism always ends up making everyone equally poor and not equally rich.

I read recently that in Canada waiting time for some surgeries are 6 months. For everyone. People who can afford and people who can't afford. Everybody screwed over. But of course that's what socialism is all about - making all people equal. In their poverty.

throwaway984812y ago

What a bunch of nonsense. If you look at aggregate numbers, people in socialist countries on the average are healthier and live longer. And the children of Canada, France, Britain, Norway, and so on do not go hungry. Amazing!

I don't even agree with a lot of western European style socialism, but it sucks that because of people like you we can't even have an honest, adult conversation about it. Thanks loads.

alexqgb12y ago

Well said good sir! Your grasp of basic facts about the world is truly impeccable. Why, I myself just got back from Sweden where I had a layover on the flight from Mozambique. Or did I stop in Mozambique on my way back from Sweden? Now that I think about it, I can't be sure! I mean, honestly, who can tell them apart? Not me! Or you!

taylodl12y ago

Did you check out the author of what you read and what agenda they may have had? Plus the term "some surgeries" is pretty vague, indicative of hand-waving.

But consider the alternative - without insurance or money your waiting time for surgery is...forever.

All health service is rationed. Our system simply doesn't ration it to those needing it most, instead rationing it to those with the most money. You can see the effects of our system with all the new "designer hospitals" they're building these days. By focusing on the affluent we're pricing health care out of reach of those of modest means. There are reasons health care costs in the United States have been rising several times more than the rate of inflation for the past 30 years. And none of those reasons paint a good portrait of our health care system.

disbelief12y ago

You might want to base your opinion on more than one thing you read somewhere. I have a friend who was diagnosed with cancer in Canada and was in surgery with one of the top surgeons in the country in under a week. That plus a lengthly stay in the hospital and all of the drugs associated with cancer were 100% covered by our healthcare system. How is this poverty?

victorf12y ago

Because your taxes are so high that people who might otherwise be able to afford a private jet now cannot? Not having a jet is quite embarrassing and really harms the jet-less that have to fly in merely first class.

victorf12y ago

Of course the proper way to order surgeries is to give priority to the wealthy persons so they can quickly get on with creating jobs. Lazy poors aren't going to do anything significant anyway, so they can wait eight or nine months and it doesn't matter.

I cannot imagine raising taxes any further, if a wealthy child's parents couldn't afford to send him to a private school imagine what a terrible education he will have! He might even end up poor himself, which, I'm sure we can all agree, is a fate we should reserve for the already poor.

dkuntz212y ago

You know, your first paragraph sounds strikingly similar to the premise of an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, Critical Care (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Critical_Care_%28episode%29)...

They also found the idea silly.

1 more reply

mason5512y ago

There's a huge difference between socialism and a minimum living standard

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

LekkoscPiwa12y ago

because we all know that then all kids would be hungry and not educated not only the poor ones. Somehow socialism always ends up making everyone equally poor and not equally rich.

throwaway984812y ago

I don't even agree with a lot of western European style socialism, but it sucks that because of people like you we can't even have an honest, adult conversation about it. Thanks loads.

alexqgb12y ago

taylodl12y ago

Did you check out the author of what you read and what agenda they may have had? Plus the term "some surgeries" is pretty vague, indicative of hand-waving.

But consider the alternative - without insurance or money your waiting time for surgery is...forever.

disbelief12y ago

victorf12y ago

dkuntz212y ago

You know, your first paragraph sounds strikingly similar to the premise of an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, Critical Care (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Critical_Care_%28episode%29)...

They also found the idea silly.

1 more reply

mason5512y ago

There's a huge difference between socialism and a minimum living standard

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse