3 ms·
> People that need healthcare don't have a choice, people _do_ have a choice to relocate to a more sustainable city though[...] People have a choice in relocat
by avar 8y ago
> People that need healthcare don't have a choice, people _do_ have a choice to relocate to a more sustainable city though[...]
People have a choice in relocating from New Orleans for less flood risk, but they don't have a choice to relocate from the US if their main problem with living there is is with the US's health care system?
I'm not going to argue that they should, but this example isn't exactly doing the work for you that you seem to think it's doing. If you're going to say "just move from New Orleans" someone else can say "just move to Canada".
You can argue about the relative difficulty of those things, but they're not inherently different, and there's certainly people for whom it's a lot easier to move countries than say people in abject poverty in New Orleans who can't imagine pulling off a move to another city in the US.
- Larrikin 8y agoHave you ever actually tried moving to a different country? Its exponentially harder than moving a few miles down the road. Plus this argument is losing the point that the government is already spending the money trying to temporarily fix the problem instead of using that money to buy up the properties at a price point that would allow the residents to move. I know not everyone would want to move, so I'm personally a fan of mandatory flood insurance in those flood prone areas. When there inevitably is a flood the resident can rebuild from their own pocket or use the insurance to move.
- avar 8y agoYeah, four times now. As noted I'm not saying it's easier than moving down the street, just that if we're talking about people in such poverty that they couldn't move down the street comparing it to the experience of other more well-off people moving countries is hardly unreasonable.