4 ms·
sure, just pointing out that the _funding and availability_ of a social service wasn't a point of contention there. unintuitive as it is, the discourse around p
by replygirl 5y ago
sure, just pointing out that the _funding and availability_ of a social service wasn't a point of contention there. unintuitive as it is, the discourse around public health and health care aren't really related. anyway i was just giving people some background, not opining. if i was feeling saucy i might say something incoherent about people feeling entitled to a service they previously resented as soon as it's useful to them
- thegrimmest 5y agoWell, you made the case that police were previously privatized. I'm not sure that's true exactly. You also compare healthcare to police and fire services. I was just elaborating as to why that comparison may not be apt. Public health, insofar as controlling the spread of communicable disease, has always been a function requiring government authority. The idea that people who set bones and cure cancer should be included in this category is a more modern take, one that requires much more careful discussion of what should and should not be a "public service". > people feeling entitled to a service they previously resented as soon as it's useful to them I think we should expect people to prefer suffering and death with dignity, rather than greedily and desperately peering into the pockets of strangers, but that's just my take.