• Katzelle3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even cities below a population of 100k have their own hospital and dozens of doctor’s offices all within a ten minute walking distance from each other.

    • Miclux
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t even ever lived in a city with less than 10k population. No doc, no hospital. No train. Just bullshit talks from privileged people.

      • EinfachUnersetzlich@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve lived in a few towns with under 10,000 inhabitants. All have had doctors, groceries, schools and regular bus services.

        • Miclux
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your argument is that when you live in a city with docs every other similar city does have docs too?

      • Katzelle3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        A population under 10k is closer to a village than a city. There are towns with a population of 5k that do indeed have their own clinics and even their own train stations as long as they are not located on the side or the top of a mountain, though it is extremely rare for a mountaintop settlement to have a population greater than 3k.

        It is honestly baffling to see that people can not fathom that urban sprawl can take shape without suburbanization. You can have houses concentrated into small splotches of land and those are chained together by a singular road and railway. Everything around that is just farmland. That’s just how villages look like in Europe.