a disproportionate amount of their money

gone

and for some, a disproportionate amount of their money saved

because that's the luck of the draw right?

because the sicker cannot afford, and could do other things to make money and save it

could they

yes

http://www.pnhp.org/mortality

we lose thousands of people because they don't have healthcare

this seems cruel

and unfairly hurting the poor

the pathetically small amount of people that make frequent visits to hospitals in Norway cost everyone, everyone mind you, even the sick, large amounts of money

this is true

that is what charities are for

they go out and help

charities are not enough

being kind

humans are not kind enough for that to work

we need to have systems of kindness in place

helping the people you see in need personally not by letting half a paycheck go to a possible hostpital bill that will be covered by the hospital if they cannot afford

and not in the modern day no

but what if no one can help someone

1900's yes, people were very good with things like that

then suck it up

and they've worked hard

but are still very sick

just fuck em?

reach out for help

where?

church

good start

religious organizations love to help

what if these people are in a hospital and can't afford their bill

Why should we rely on these random institutions?

then most often the hospital will front it

It's far more efficient to just have a system set up to do this automatically

front it

doesn't mean pay for it

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/10/10/the-cdcs-influenza-math-doesnt-add-up-exaggerating-the-death-toll-to-sell-flu-shots/ Here's another point of view of healthcare

but also far harder for people who say cannot afford the tax hike

what about them?