Loved ones dying/getting sick from lack of treatment as a result of capitalism

Only silver lining in all this is that I live in Canada. I can't imagine what it must be like down in the US and having to go through this sort of thing with your mother/father/brother/sister (etc.) Must be fucking brutal. I'm amazed that something like "John Q." isn't happening every goddamn day down there, given how desperate people must be.

Find a better job.

...

Is that supposed to be an argument?

Yeah. I've had this experience. It ended badly. I'd quite happily flay the government minister responsible, Mohammad Emwazi style, despite my vegetarianism.

Well, how much money are we talking here?

The resources for treatment have to come from somewhere. If you don't have them yourself, you either have to get a better job, borrow the money from friends or family, or simply accept that you can't afford the treatment and move on. Nobody owes your cat that treatment, nor are resources just magically "siphoned" to certain people, while others "get" less.

I realize there's only so much I can do given my immediate financial situation, but to say that it's acceptable that someone's access to health care, (whether it's for themselves, another human being or a pet) should be ultimately determined by how much money they have? Please consider suicide wannabe porky.


lol. The Kochs, Waltons, Du Ponts, & Rothschilds of the world say hello.

That's your fault for not bootstrapping and finding a job with good benefits.

Here in America sick animals are either put down or shot. Poor people can have a shelter do it for free, or they can just do it themselves and have a roadkill crew take it.

Shit happens OP. My mom has had three different cats die just to cars in the past five years.

Here's an idea: pets aren't people, they are property. And when property gets sick beyond recovery it's the owner's responsibility to put it out of it's misery. Ever work on a farm or 4H? This is commonly understood.

except the only reason they haven't got money to treat the animal is because someone took more than their share

if only you had enough money to get an education you wouldn't have to have simple things like this explained to you

Look, I grew up in Alberta. Animals are used for either making money (slaughterhouse, or otherwise) or for personal comfort. If the owner is not capable of paying for medical treatment then it's their responsibility to have it put down. This has been the modus operandi since animals were first domesticated thousands of years ago.

It fucking sucks, I understand that. But ultimately this is how life works. Capitalism has nothing to do with it as pets aren't people, therefore they aren't entitled to unlimited healthcare like we are.

I get that, but you can't control a car hitting your cat out of the blue. Random events like that you've just got to accept. A cat getting sick from an easily treatable illness is a different story. Having to watch your friend slowly die knowing that he COULD be saved, but can't because money, and the lack thereof in my case, is the sole deciding factor for treatment. It fucking sucks man.

Except the owner isn't capable of providing medical treatment only because the wealth they created was appropriated by a third party and they received only a fraction of it back in wage.

Whatever man. We've got tens of trillions of dollars to bail out Wall Street, give enormous subsidies to massively destructive/unethical companies, and start unwinnable, decade long wars in the middle east, but basic free healthcare (as in free tests/X-rays) for pets? Surely you must be insane. There's no money for that!

Then it's time to have it put down. But I also don't know (or particularly) care for the details of the situation. It's a value judgement, are you willing to forego things just to pay for your pet's healthcare? It's time to have that discussion with yourself.


Even in a pure communistic society, few could justify using veterinary resources on pets (pets would not exist as it's extremely bourgeois). Yes, it is very unfortunate that animals get sick but this is the responsibility it's owner takes on when they bought it.

Yeah, yeah. There's not much I can do to get around facing that painful reality now is there? The fact of the matter is, veterinary treatment is a luxury, which goes along with the luxury of owning another living thing in the first place. If you're rich, by definition, you can take proper care of that luxury with very little difficulty. If you're poor, or find yourself to be poor later on in life, then it's the whole "Tough shit. Deal with it. Guess you shouldn't have enslaved another living then." routine. You fuckers are just telling me things I'm already very well aware of. All I was looking for was a bit of sympathy for fuck's sake.

inb4 "You came to the wrong place"
inb4 "Tough shit, deal with it"

Look, my pet has had a good life. If he dies, he dies. At least I can take solace in the fact that he was loved and cared for. Not many cats or dogs that out there are ever so lucky as that. I just wish it didn't have to end this way. Over something as trivial as lack of money. I always hoped he would just pass in his sleep, or something. Not in a cold vets office with me giving the final order to have him euthanized. Ah well, it may not come to that just yet. And even if it does, it's just onwards and upwards I guess.

Veterinarians are still scum, though.


Enh, I suppose that's true. In an ideal world animals wouldn't have to be bred and traded around like a commodity/slaves only to serve as amusement/facsimile for companionship for humans. Bottom line is capitalism creates a lot of unnecessary misery for essentially everyone (pets included).

Setting aside pets though, medical care being withheld from humans due to lack of money is downright revolting and porky needs to get the life choked out of him ASAP for it.

...

But if we were in a communist society the owner would have the spare resources to get treatment for the cat, which they are only unable to do because under capitalism those resources are monopolized by a few individuals at the expense of the majority.

...

if you can't afford pets you shouldn't have them in the first place

they kill mice, voles, moles, sickly birds, spiders, flies… hell, even snails eating away on your garden
cats are awesome

ok

Ol'Dr. Brule can help you with that one.

Capitalism fails again.

SHOCKER!

There is no universal right to have a nice jacket or the latest phone. I don't see why healthcare would be any different.

With that said, healthcare is much more expensive than it could have been, thanks thousands and thousands of pages' worth of regulations, licensing on who can practice medicine and how, and, in the US at least, an "insurance" system that is completely flawed and only helps to drive up prices further. In other places where healthcare is completely run by the government, the costs are still massive, but of course indirectly as you pay half your income or more in taxes. People still die, because there are massive shortages. In my country for example, where healthcare is completely run by the government, many common cancer forms have waiting periods of 3–6 months from detection to treatment. Just how many people die from illnesses that they could have survived, had they only been treated immediately, we will never know.
That's government/statism, not capitalism.

Is that supposed to be an argument?


What are mice?

...

You could say that for anything, it's still the state that's responsible.

I went to the ER because I was too drunk to retain fluids but still sober enough to realize I hadn't had water in nearly a day. After insurance took care of half of it they tried to charge me $800 for literally 1 bag of IV fluid and laying in a bed for an hour.

Are you putting people's lives on the same level than luxuries? Says a lot about you.


A state will always emerge as long as there is private property.

Are you dying, suffering from a terminal illness or in agony at the moment?

Thank god my country is rich and has free health care. Your life must be suffering in other parts of the world.

How are they logically any different? How can a right exist for one, but not for the other? How do you derive such a right?

lolborgs everyone

An it's a Nazi pointing it out. Lolberts are definiteley the lowest of the low.


Ok let's put it simply.
An object.
A person's life.
Someone not affording a commodity.
Someone dying.
Doesn't ring a bell?
Do people have the same worth than objects?

Not that anyone cares, but my cat's going to be fine (thank god). He had a combination of impacted feces, mixed with a fairly bad infestation of roundworms. I managed to get into a local vet who wasn't as expensive as the rest and he managed to diagnose what was wrong.

Be that as it may, porky can still go suck a dick.

Happy for you.

Good to know.

But you didn't answer. How can there be a "right" to "free" healthcare, but not to other things? Other than "it's human life and I want free stuff because I want it".

fucking kill me

...

How else do you justify stealing from one man to give to another?

No offense m8, but I care more about my computer than I care about you.

I don't know the same way you justify it with your private property meme?

Just answer this please:

I'm glad to hear your cat is ok.

It's supposed to be genuine advice if you actually care about saving your cat's life instead of simply using his death to complain about capitalism

Alright so, first of all
But whatever, you don't even need to be a leftist to think that what you're saying is completely fucking insane.
First of all, this "stealing" nonsense can be justified pretty easily through a moral appeal. It's just generally agreed upon that even if we assume that the status quo capitalist society is a "meritocracy", you don't deserve to fucking die just because you're a lazy fuck who doesn't want to contribute. (It hurts to write this shit)
Second, most people would agree that it's complete fucking insanity to place commodities like iPhones and jackets beside healthcare. While it's true that both carry a use value and an economic value related to this use value, which means that they can reasonably be treated as a commodity in a capitalist society, the issue isn't with whether it can be treated as a commodity, rather with whether it should.
There's a reason why the EMRK states life as a basic human right, and not internet connectivity or style. It's just widely regarded that we should organize our societies in such a way that people don't needlessly die.

The european human rights convention ofc. EMRK is how it's abbreviated in local law speak.

>t. Cat Lady Girl

Why liberals can't get a damn law through so-called "do-nothing" Congress

Wrong. That's more or less the entire purpose of wage labor and investment.