andyh wrote: To the question above; I say no.
But in the meantime
To the question in the OP: yes.

mikey mikey wrote:
I don't believe in having countries or poor people so the entire OP has no meaning for me

This is how I would word it - "Should people be capable of getting GOOD healthcare no matter what" simple as.

I don't remember you being like this over on icke Andy. And I made no mention of government.

i-baster wrote:
Country = state= govt.
Poor = an artificially created paradigm.

I was like this long before I even joined DIF lol.

should a country be able to create poor people in the first place?

humanspirit wrote:
Indeed! I did ask that earlier
Poor people are essential for the current 'anti-economy' to work ofc.

Why don't the powers in government realize the private hospitals are charging unfair fees.


Question to andy

Rick wrote:
What makes you think they don't realize?

andyh wrote:
If government were abolished across the board you could still have countries. Poverty is very real regardless of how it was created.

andyh wrote:
I think private hospitals hold power of the government with fees, other than that how can let's say a person on indigent care receive better procedures than a middle class person with top of the line insurance, and faster treatment, I see this happen all the time.

It's mind boggling

i-baster wrote:

All wealth is stolen in one form or another.

Rick wrote:
I would go further and say that both private and public healthcare does that.
Both are full of overpaid assholes who in turn use drugs supplied by pharma that are a bunch of overpaid assholes.
Again money and profit directs all of it, including who gets to lobby govt for their interests which are ofc again profit.

The government will kick in and help a poor fellow with his/her medical needs, a privately owned hospital treats them like trash at times

But those private hospitals sure want their government money, when they have no charitable instincts and charge some poor soul more money than they make in a year for some trumped up procedures.

Words like country have more than one definition. Not all of which include government. Epic fail is with you there I think.

Rick wrote:
There's no charity from either end, in one case an individual pays, in another all of society pays.
Someone pays. Today we work over half our lives to pay taxes, what do we get for half our working lifes effort?
Its pretty obvious most of it gets pissed away on empire building wars and bailing out banks, the rest of it goes towards fat cat corporations who pay sod all tax yet have the privilege of lobbying govt for what they want which is more of the same.

Meanwhile the proles continue to vote for one group or another that when in power does the bidding of the lobbyists regardless of their left or right or red or blue flavouring.

You can take this example of public vs private to other things such as transportation in the UK which has been privatized, they now pay their drivers minimum wage and they still get govt subsidies for fuel and bus routes, the welfare state if anything pays the rich man, the poor just don't realise it.

The poor have to borrow money and pay interest on it, the rich merely have to sit on their wealth and reap the dividends.
One group contributes to society, the other is like a leech sucking the life blood from it.

The only 'solution' so to speak would have to be about removing the entire monetary paradigm, a resource based economy would ensure that all people would be of decent living standard and that all people could contribute something of equal worth and what they are happy doing and are happy to get skilled at doing instead of what job pays the most....

i-baster wrote:
In your dictionary perhaps lol.

There's rural countryside what can sometimes be called 'country' but that would have no relevance here.

A country has borders and a map defining it, if it has borders then it has definition which is enforced and established with an establishment.

If a country has no govt then how could it possibly 'provide' medical care!?? lol...you're not doing very well here.

I prefer just to see the entire planet Earth.

Without getting into semantics about countries and governments it is my belief that a society has a responsibility to ensure that its sick and disabled are given medical care no matter whether that person is able to contribute towards its cost - just as I believe that societies should ensure that no one is without clean water, nutritionally balanced food and safe shelter. I feel that everyone should be afforded a certain basic quality of life - though how this could be accomplished with current attitudes towards resources and 'value' I am not entirely sure.

thoreau wrote:
especially when it helps to create sick and disabled people through various means to keep them down and make money off them.

andyh wrote:
So your dictionary is lacking and mine is much more detailed apparently. Try an online one perhaps.

Then you propose that people could not provide healthcare without government. At least be consistent when you are attempting to put me down. Government could provide healthcare to its citizens yes but so could an anarchist collective or a community of any kind really. All it takes is one person with medical knowledge even if it is basic. Getting hung up on the semantics is childish of you and I am sure you know it.