3 ms·

Obviously it's impossible for everyone to be healthy at all times. I love that you picked the one that is dependentent on non-capitalist forces to nitpick by th

Obviously it's impossible for everyone to be healthy at all times. I love that you picked the one that is dependentent on non-capitalist forces to nitpick by the way, smart move. But surely it is possible to make them more healthy than they currently are through better housing, through better nutrition, through less stress and uncertainty, through better access to healthcare, through less reliance on "sins" like alcoholism, smoking, and drug addiction because their lives are objectively less awful. Quit being obtuse.

roenxi 6y ago
> Obviously it's impossible for everyone to be healthy at all times. No, it goes deeper than that. It is impossible for everyone's health to be equal. There is always going to be some very unhealthy people. Having everyone "fed, housed and clothed" is literally achievable. I can count the people then count the calories, houses & clothes. In practice it wouldn't be perfect, but there is an obvious limit where that baseline can be achieved. Having everyone "be healthy" is unachievable. In any imaginable scenario within the bounds of current technology and resources there will be a large number of people who we can point to and say "these people aren't healthy and we could do more for them". This isn't me being obtuse, this is pointing out that "being healthy" is fundamentally a shifting standard changes to be relative to approximating median health outcomes. We can't achieve it as a baseline because as we approach it the baseline will move.