One continues to be fascinated by the very human dichotomy in which (the global) "we" want to allude to, or leverage, these concepts, while stridently avoiding evaluating them in any way that might lead to behavioral conclusions.
For a specific example, consider: International Law, in all its emphemerality.
I suppose not engaging with these principles however vague would reduce down to an immediate, might makes right cause-benefit analysis for any given situation. I think it's probably good that people still hold themselves to some standards, regardless of how universally comparable they are across different people.
In my state it covers anyone making below $1,799/mo, with no asset test. The details do vary, that's for adults without dependent children or disabilities. I believe you were unemployed at the time?
I mention because:
> Had I been living in the USA, I would have needed to prioritize seeking employment and medical insurance and likely would not have been able to discharge the duty which fate had thrust upon me.
Normally I just shrug this kind of cheap dig off. Most people don't care about what's true, and that just has to be accepted. But surely the duty of a scholar includes a duty to the truth? I know you would prefer to keep that bit, since I'm certain it correctly reflects your rating of our country's respective approaches to health care.
But it isn't true. Is the thing.
Is that how it worked in 2005?