[mionhe]

Meta: down votes here prove no such thing. If you are downvoted it's because you read the article that had nothing to do with politics, the comment on a vision of heaven and hell that had nothing to do with politics, and then you made it about something that is very politicized in the US.

Both the article and comment you commented on eschewed a trite political message and tried to say something real and human.

[testing22321]

The fact you think a basic human right is politics shows how much of a problem it is.

Developed countries don’t do that.

[AuryGlenz]

It’s not as simple as that and you know it. There are upsides and downsides to both systems.

Personally, I’d be fine with universal healthcare on the state level, but not the federal. The fact that I have thoughts like that shows it’s not as simple as “durr everyone deserves healthcare.” Of course they do, but a universal healthcare system implemented poorly means that everyone gets really bad healthcare.

[E39M5S62]

Universal healthcare is real and human. If we can't use an article to inform how we think about current problems, what's the point of it?

[bigstrat2003]

But the parent wasn't doing that. He was just taking the opportunity to dunk on his outgroup, by insinuating that people who are opposed to universal healthcare are selfish people who would rather hurt themselves than help others (which you will see is patently untrue if you actually get to know those people, but I digress).

If the parent had instead chosen to give a thoughtful response focusing more on a positive message (say, exploring how we should do more to help others and how universal healthcare can be a facet of that), that would've been fine. But yet another post of "my outgroup is evil" doesn't teach us anything or lead to good discussion.