Pssst, I heard the last country to land people there laughable still hasn't even made it to the level of free health care for all! They still might, of course, it's not like any of these goals are mutually exclusive.
"free" is a broad term, as someone obviously has to pay for it, either from his pocket or via taxes or whatever. Nevertheless, everybody has access to health care after all which isn´t true for India and water supply.
Beg to disagree. If you have money in India you can get water supply. Even if you're located in a remote village with no plumbing, water trucks will deliver weekly and fill up your domestic water tank.
So...the analogy to healthcare in the US isn't too far off. If you have money and/or a good job you can get healthcare in the US and water in India (healthcare too).
Free healthcare? That'd sure be amazing. Oh, you mean non-free healthcare provided by taxes, paid for by anyone earning an income and only actually free for anyone not earning an income.
Anyone not earning an income in the US gets 'free' healthcare and has for decades. It's anything but free, it's very expensive.
Just ask any developed nation with socialized healthcare just how free healthcare is, as they all universally struggle to afford it (which is why Canada's wait times are so atrocious despite being held up as a good system).
One can make a great argument for socialized healthcare without pretending it's free. Claiming it's free is just an absurdity, as it's extremely expensive.
> Anyone not earning an income in the US gets 'free' healthcare and has for decades. It's anything but free, it's very expensive.
My impression was that the only way it's "free" is if you walk into an emergency room with no money. And the fact that uninsured people can only go to emergency rooms (routine issues fester and become serious) is in part what drives up the cost.
In places like Canada the wait times are atrocious due to triaging. If your problem is serious you will get looked at immediately. If it's not, you have to wait. And if you can afford it, you're still free to go to a private clinic. But it does seem like overall health outcomes and costs are better than the US.
So...yeah it's true calling it "free" healthcare is a bit of a misnomer but no one actually thinks it costs $0 to provide. Think of free healthcare like freeways: paid for by tax money for the public good, and occasionally you'll have to pay a nominal toll (co-pay or whatever).
I think people use the term "free" in the same way that the term "free" tricks people into spending more than they would have otherwise. Calling it "free" let's you mentally sidestep the details.
I mean free as in if I chop my arm off, no worries, no bills, I get fixed up. I mean free as in my wife is pregnant, no worries, no bills, my baby is delivered in a hospital. I mean free as in my kids gets cancer, no worries, no bills, they get chemo or whatever they need. I mean never going into debt because I need my life saved. I mean never not going to the doctor because it'll ruin me. I mean everyone pays consumption tax here, nobody gets a free ride, and everyone gets looked after. I mean not looking down on another country because they're not perfect when your country isn't either.
I can't understand your comment.
Regardless of military expenses a lot of countries with universal healthcare spend less per capita than US where is not universal.
Can you please explain me how military expenses affect the amount of money spent in healthcare?
Just for reference, the biggest (med-high, annually recurring) expenditures of Westernized Democracies tend to be social welfare (penchants and such), agrarian supply chain, healthcare, and security/defense. Water figures heavily depending on geography. The unifying factor is the need for continuing, consistent investment just to maintain, non inclusive of repair, renovation, or improvement. This is why these things are so expensive.
The European Bloc has benefitted from defense/security being bolstered by US equipment/investment since the Marshall Plan. I believe this is what the other poster was referencing.
The cost of this mission is 93 million dollars. If you can come up with a plan to provide basic supply with fresh water for the entire country for 93 million dollars I'm sure the Indian government will be greatly interested in your services. Heck you may even be offered a billion dollars to solve this problem. Maybe then you'll realise the logistical nightmare of getting supply of fresh water to 1.25 billion people.
If you do not understand the dynamics of how developing countries function it's best you not comment. The same "poor people" for whom you feel sad for (in another comment you posted below) sport a smartphone in their pockets. This is the irony of living in a developing country. Technology advances faster and ends up becoming cheaper than building last mile connectivity and basic services. Infrastructure building is always slower and more expensive than tech adoption.
Thanks for looking out for India. I'm sure they appreciate that. You make a good point, all of us should get our own country fixed. Hopefully you're doing something about yours too..
Countries don't generally operate on the myopic principle of addressing issues one at a time.
When America first began the Apollo program, it was almost a full decade before the United States addressed a lot of the racial issues that have plagued it since its inception.
By many measures, such as access to healthcare, incarceration rates, and even basic literacy, the United States still has severe equality issues. If the United States was operating according to this principle, they would still be waiting to send anyone to space. I'd be happily surprised if there was actually any country that had fully conquered this issue.
Point being that every country, all the way up to the largest economy in the world, has unresolved issues. Issues which are fundamental to human rights and equality.
Is your umbrage with India specifically, or are you promoting the idea of singular focus as a global concept? If the latter, I'd be interested (genuinely!) in seeing your reasoning and evidence. If the former, I'd encourage you to reflect on what you are saying, and discover why you are (I assume, and hope, inadvertently) applying your criticism in a discriminatory manner
_You_ may want that. However, _India_, as the biggest democracy in the world, chose to do a moon landing instead.
What makes you believe you know better about what is best? Unless you are an astrophysicist specialized in economic development (not sure that exists) odds are not in favor of your judgement being the correct one.
I don´t need to be either of that to see that a country should have an aspiration to provide a certain standard of living (water that is safe to drink, basic health care and lots alike) for everybody before landing things on the moon.
But India has a deeply fucked up society which gives a shit about people from "the bottom" of that society, so I am not really wondered that they do some publicity stunt instead of getting their country fixed.