This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “One of the arguments against universal health coverage in America is that we are giving poor people something for nothing. So how are European countries able to avoid this while offering universal health coverage?”
They don’t avoid that, but those who argue against universal healthcare are more fixated on hating the poor than they are on understanding how “giving the poor something for nothing” results in superior healthcare at half the cost for themselves.
The cost-based mentality is surprisingly dumb when they can’t comprehend how much they can save when considering expenditures as investments rather than losses.
It is precisely this thinking that Donald Trump has been leveraging to send the nation into a recession.
Conservative thinking tends to be so very short-sighted that when they claim to be fiscally responsible, all they’re doing is showing the world they’re incapable of stimulating growth.
Conservative thinking about healthcare epitomizes their fiscal incompetence.
Fiscal issues are entirely based on a revenue versus costs model, but conservatives seem capable of understanding only one column on their balance sheet.
The capacity for creativity is why liberals excel in the revenue generation side of the balance sheet. Conservatives could learn some valuable lessons about fiscal competence from liberals if they weren’t so close-minded and filled with hateful bigotry.
Caring for the poor is how we bring out the best for everyone at the lowest cost.
This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “If McDonald’s were banned in some countries, would obesity rates be halved?”
If you want to see a reduction in obesity, which is a goal that is consistent with some administrations but not universally supported by all public leaders, the public at large, or the billionaires and corporations they own which profit from exploiting public health for profit, then the first place to start is not with banning anything, and much less restaurants.
You begin with public education and awareness programs that can create a cultural awareness of health issues that encourage an organic form of change.
Once the public begins demanding increased quality of food, restaurants like McDonald’s adapt to the demand as they already have. They have made some, but not a lot of progress, and that’s mainly because people think nothing of a burger with fries and a soft drink as a “normal meal” without considering how much healthier it would be with minor changes. Instead of fried potatoes, for example, they could have a baked potato. Instead of a soft drink, they could drink sugar-free tea.
I know. Several chills just went down people’s spines when they read these suggestions, but that’s precisely my point.
People have gotten so used to grossly unhealthy choices that they can’t imagine tolerating, much less enjoying, alternatives.
The notion of a soft drink like a Coke with my food sends a chill down my spine and makes my stomach churn. It has, however, taken me decades to get to this point. It’s not that I always make healthy choices, but. I am aware of the difference between healthy and unhealthy. Over time, that knowledge has contributed to changing my consumption habits.
What we learn to become accustomed to results in behaviours that our children emulate, and this is how we can collectively improve the state of health in our society.
This is an example of how we are all a part of a larger whole and how our choices, as insignificant as they may seem on individual levels, combine to result in significant social changes.
This is how we have evolved from a culture where a majority smokes cigarettes to one which publicly shuns smoking.
Significant social change is slow, but by being slow, it is also permanent in ways that legislation cannot accomplish.
This isn’t to say that all legislation is pointless, but that we can be selective in the types of legislation we can focus on. Instead of legislating healthy food choices in restaurants, we can introduce legislation to remove and replace high fructose corn syrup (which is an addictive sugar intended to increase product sales and plays a significant role in the obesity epidemic) with healthier alternatives.
The U S. is the world’s largest consumer of this food additive, and it shows in the prevalence of obesity throughout the nation in ways that exist nowhere else.
This is why agencies like the FDA can be critical allies in encouraging public health. Elon’s DOGE supporters are clueless about why they must be less mindlessly judgmental of government departments they don’t understand or appreciate.
The more the public supports healthy food choices, the more elected public officials will, too. The more critical people perceive physical health, the less likely the public will elect someone who lives on fast food to important public leadership roles.
Change is a massive wheel that seems impossible to get started moving, but once it does, it creates its momentum, eventually requiring little to no effort to push for a specific change.
This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “What does the left mean by freedom? When ever I see lefties passing around rankings of the “freeist” countries, inevitably the countries at the top are the type with heavy regulation, heavy taxation, low economic freedom.”
One of the hallmarks of a lack of freedom is ideological thinking that colours one’s perceptions in ways that interfere with one’s apprehension of reality to impede one’s critical thinking skills.
For example, the flawed presumption in this question presumes higher taxation equals less economic freedom when the obvious comparison between the U.S.’s health exploitation system is far more destructive to one’s financial freedom than the taxed version of universal health care offered by every other nation that has succeeded in providing higher quality care at a lower price.
There is no economic freedom when medical bankruptcies destroy lives.
There is no economic freedom for people who pay over one thousand dollars per month for insulin when the rest of the world pays only tens of dollars.
There is no freedom when one is murdered for profit.
There is no cognitive freedom for anyone who divides the world into ideological camps, just as there is no freedom from the mind-destroying forms of bigotry polluting this world.
Within the context of this question, the definition of freedom that addresses it is clarity of thinking, in which the querent proves their mind is so trapped within a toxic paradigm they can’t understand freedom when it’s presented to them in the most unambiguous of terms.
I fully expect this answer to whoosh past the querent’s mind and trigger them into an ideological quandary where they will dismiss these words as an ideological irrelevancy in much the same way that the people who think Donald Trump is an intelligent man are utter idiots.
People have given incredibly poignant answers to this disgusting question, but you don’t care what they have to say. It’s all just rhetoric to you. It means nothing to you because you don’t have to personally deal with the reality of being denied access to life-saving treatment.
Your fake profile name already suggests you’re only interested in pushing buttons and watching the left get triggered.
The suffering of others holds no weight for you unless it becomes a part of your experience.
That’s just how you are… but that’s not what’s so disgusting about this question.
It’s horrifying that you’ve been so broken that you’re okay with contributing to the murder of innocent women… but that’s also not what’s disgusting about your question.
Have you noticed how all the answers aren’t actually about abortion?
They’re all about saving lives and explaining how important it is to have access to healthcare.
But you don’t care about that, just like you don’t care about the lives you’re responsible for ending with your attitude toward abortion.
No.
Your question proves you revel in all that.
You are okay with women dying because you believe that’s justice.
It’s just righteousness to you that they die.
At least that’s what you want to believe even though you struggle to accept that, and your doubt shows through the cracks in an attempt at an innocent facade in your question.
You ask why people on the left are obsessed with abortion, but they’re not.
Not one of these answers shows an obsession with abortion.
They show concern for life.
Don’t you find it strange that the alleged “pro-life” people who are supposed to value life don’t value it at all?
Yet, somehow, they have focused on forcing women to undergo a full birth in all cases because they hate abortions… while they claim to be defending a child’s life — as they ignore living children dying every five seconds due to preventable causes. (That’s at least ten-to-fifteen children that will have died in the time you spent reading this answer.) You blatantly lie about caring about life, and you lie in this question about who’s doing the obsessing over abortion.
It’s not the left who’s obsessed with abortion.
You “pro-lifers” have been obsessed with abortion since Roe v. Wade was instituted.
Once that protection for women was instituted — and to be clear, it was instituted to protect women from dying unnecessarily — the American left stopped thinking about abortion. Women were getting the treatment they needed… so there was no point in having to think about it any longer.
The anti-abortion crowd didn’t stop thinking about it, though. They became even more obsessed with it and hunkered down on a fifty-year strategy to repeal the law and ban abortion.
Throughout all that time, they’ve never bothered to learn why abortions happened. They have maintained precisely the same depraved attitude you demonstrate within this question.
You sincerely believe abortion is just another form of contraception, and worse, you don’t care what the reality is. You mock the nightmare of having to undergo an abortion procedure while comparing it to the contraception you’re also blocking access to.
You’re obsessed with women who undergo abortion procedures because you believe they’re trying to weasel their way out of unwanted pregnancy… and you assume that’s not supposed to be permitted… even if they’re rape victims and not the whores you want to believe they are.
That’s what makes you evil… your hypocrisy, your iniquity, and your insistence that your disparaging fiction is reality without caring in the least about the horrifying experiences women suffer through as you gleefully kill them with your indifference.
That’s right… you are a murderer, just as if you pulled the trigger on a gun to end their lives by your hand. Your support of denying women the life-saving treatment they need means you have, according to this quick AI summary, been responsible for the unnecessary deaths of almost two thousand women as a consequence of your obsession with abortion.
Your obsession with abortion is responsible for almost the number of lives lost on 9/11.
You’re worse than a terrorist because you behave as if you are protecting lives instead of destroying them and committing manslaughter with your depraved ignorance.
No one on the left is obsessed with abortions, but you already knew that. You want to wipe your hands clean of the evil that you and your ilk have been perpetuating… you know what you’re doing is wrong, and you’re having fun with it… and that’s what makes this question and you so inhumanly disgusting.
thotbag 