2 ms·
> So again: Why isn't the take that Thousands are dying to soon to save money? You relayed a handful of stories that, even assuming they're all broadly correct
by msla 4y ago
> So again: Why isn't the take that Thousands are dying to soon to save money?
You relayed a handful of stories that, even assuming they're all broadly correct, still don't add up to thousands.
- wernercd 4y agoI've replayed a handful of stories that point to the fact that there are 10 thousand assisted suicides in Canada. Out of those thousands, if "assuming they're broadly correct" add up to a system that is not well thought out and is already having problems with "oh, you're poor and having a bad day? we can fix that!" And my original question still stands: Why is the interpretation "California is letting people suffer needlessly" not "Why is Canada killing people to save money"? - since the original person I responded to is just as likely to be wrong that CA isn't killing enough people... I don't think it's wrong to assume that Canada is killing people that don't need to die. 1 is too many... and it's easily 10's of people... and easily hundreds. It's not that hard to assume it's at least 10% of the 10k killed meaning "add up to thousands" is easy to assume.
- ImHereToVote 4y agoI think you simply missed the point that neo-liberals can't believe the idea that professional neo-liberal politicians might have I'll intent.
- msla 4y agoYour thinking I'm a neoliberal invalidates your point. You, however, are a statist who wants the government to mandate suffering.