The term I used was intentionally vague, referring broadly to the people who make up a given community, society or civilization. Everyone living in a given country, for example. Everyone within a respective health authority's region of responsibility. The people who make up the society in which we live, and with whom we share some degree of dependence and implicit/explicit responsibility to help ensure the survival of.

Do you think a civilization where healthcare is provided by mandatory extraction of wealth under a threat of violence is more humane compared to the one where people take care only of their close relatives without being compelled by any force?

Clearly he's referring to the citizens of a nation.

Should every person consider people with the same citizenship as “their people” and treat them better than others? Is it really uncivilized and inhumane to not follow that norm?

I think you're reading tribalism into an issue of logistics.

There are no logistics issues with residents and tourists.

Bloody hell man, you really do like to read between imaginary lines.

I think you have imagined those imaginary lines. I have no idea what you mean.

In every comment you made in the thread, you seem to have taken minor issues of phrasing and used them to wildly misinterpret comments in the least charitable way imaginable.

> Who are “your people”?

This seemed (to me at least, but it wasn't entirely clear) to be reading a comment to be race based when it obviously wasn't.

> Should every person consider people with the same citizenship as “their people” and treat them better than others? Is it really uncivilized and inhumane to not follow that norm?

Really? This just completely misinterprets the comment it replied to.

> There are no logistics issues with residents and tourists.

This assumes that a system aiming to provide universal healthcare to the citizens of a nation will refuse to help non-citizens within the nation.

> This seemed (to me at least, but it wasn't entirely clear) to be reading a comment to be race based when it obviously wasn't.

It seemed so to you because you tried to read something imaginary between the lines. It is ironic that it is exactly what you accuse me of.

> Really? This just completely misinterprets the comment it replied to.

I don't think it misinterprets anything. If you think it does, provide a better interpretation.

> This assumes that a system aiming to provide universal healthcare to the citizens of a nation will refuse to help non-citizens within the nation.

No, I didn't assume anything. OP said "Keeping your people healthy should just be a given". Following basic language pragmatics, it means that keeping not your people healthy is not a given. I asked who are "your people" and was given an answer that it means citizens.

> No, I didn't assume anything.

Then perhaps that's the problem - as per the guidelines "assume good faith".

> "Keeping your people healthy should just be a given".

> Following basic language pragmatics

Quite frankly, that's rubbish; here you are taking the least charitable interpretation of the parent comment.

Most people would have interpreted that as excluding those outside of a country's borders - its region of direct control.

You misinterpreted my comment, where I said "citizens" in much the same way.

> In every comment you made in the thread, you seem to have taken minor issues of phrasing and used them to wildly misinterpret comments in the least charitable way imaginable.

My previous comment hits the nail on the head, and you've done the same damned thing with your latest response.

Presumably the voting-age population in the US that allows people to die untreated (or buried in medical debt)