3 ms·

Very strange comment. I would encourage you to read the specifics of the actual case. The hospital was severely under resourced resulting in a simple case being

Very strange comment. I would encourage you to read the specifics of the actual case. The hospital was severely under resourced resulting in a simple case being neglected and the child dying. The child could have received basic treatment and they would have survived. Underresourcing the hospital was a deliberate decision by Brookfield to push for a government bail-out. Anyone who made money off this should be in jail. Absolutely no idea what the rest of your comment is about. Our hospitals should have the resources to treat a sick child. Some might say that's the entire point of society.

devilsdata 13d ago
You're fighting a losing battle advocating for public stewardship of anything on this website. The majority of people I've spoken with here are American, doing very well for themselves, and aspirational entrepreneurs. They have no concept of how much cheaper medical care can be. They don't realise there is enough for everyone. They are blind to the fact that many other countries care for all of their people for a fraction of the price. The people on this forum live in a strange parallel reality where there is only enough to go around, even though that hasn't been true for a very long time. So when people ask why they don't provide for the poor or fix their broken healthcare system by introducing single-payer healthcare, they'll speak to you like you're an idiot or a child. "Who is going to pay for that?", they ask, while paying an order of magnitude more for a GP visit than any other citizen of any other nation does. To them, you just have a poor understanding of economics.