You're only muddying your own waters further. Let's go back for a second...the fact that you acknowledge that terminally homeless exists in both systems your argument is significantly reduced.

....and lucky.........and if he isn't smart and lucky he'll just die hungry and/or alone and/or early and/or suffering without basic medical care

So basically, capitalism and socialism both leave masses of the people in poverty. Capitalism will allow for a tiny minority of people to attain great material wealth, and a significant number of people to be left -- hungry, sick, and diseased -- for dead. Socialism will allow for an even smaller minority of people to attain great wealth, while a larger number of people will live with basic needs and few if any will be left for dead.

I guess, like the article says, take your pick, evil for evil.

No, that was the argument from the very beginning. You only chose to ignore it. I said that's a realistic description OF the terminally-ill homeless person. The description being, left for dead. i.e. without appropriate medical care.

Which would happen even your socialist states...since you seem to have missed my point the first go around. Only difference is that they probably wouldn't be left for dead in plain sight.

The "waters" are the same throughout all of my posts.


Well let's pick the two in question then, Cuba and Venezuela.

And let's try to compare them to comparable countries, like you know, capitalist countries in the Caribbean and South America.

Have at it.