Quote (Doggyfood @ 16 Jul 2021 19:23)
My medical bills, if I were uninsured, would exceed the amount of money I will spend on food&shelter in my entire lifetime.
My back surgery cost more than my house.
You are eating paint chips if you think that is how medical costs functioned in the past.
The argument was not about the magnitude of medical costs, it was about the idea that an individual who cannot provide for his medical treatment out of his own means (no matter how cheap or expensive it would be) is entitled to have it covered by society. Throughout most of human history, it was handled via charity provided and funded by volunteers.
Quote (Leevee @ 16 Jul 2021 19:20)
For the sake of "Political (...) debate", you should simply not respond to that chain of XistenZ's posts. Even if he were right about the Romans, his point would still not lead to any argument pro or con anything I've said.
There's no reason to say modern sentiments are any more or less valid than others.
It's just a red herring. The only fitting response is to ignore it.
Your claim that "If someone dies because they can't pay a medical bill, in a country that has the means to help that person, then that's blood on capitalism's hands." is almost comical in its overgeneralization and lack of nuance.
Also, the equivalent situation frequently arose and still arises in communist countries where the state-run healthcare system does not provide certain treatments although it technically could. So instead of not getting the treatment that you need because you lack the financial resources, you have the situation where someone is at the mercy of the state-run bureaucracy and just falls through the cracks. By this standard that you introduced, every society with a non-perfect healthcare system has "blood on its hands".
