Attacks on Medicare For All guided by lobbyists

[Economy 52,931]

13 minutes ago, TheQueenEnthusiast said:

Call me whatever you want sis. Black and brown people, MY PEOPLE, are out here catching HIV in our communities. We engage in the same activities white gays do but it doesn't matter cause we're not rich and we don't have access to capital. I AM ANGRY that for white people this is "But our taxes?!?!" While for many in impoverished cities it's "Will I be able to live?" Or we can talk about And how about everyone in between? You people swear this is something that isn't actively killing people day by day. I am so tired of these ass discussions and socioeconomic discourses around black and brown livelihoods. 

Also love how you're calling me privileged. HAHAHA 

- From a Latino gay who has/had a single mother, 3 kids, and lived off of welfare. (I WILL NEVER be against any social net programs because they helped us, and now that we're middle class I advocate for those who cannot) Sit down. 

 

First of all... Race alone isn't all that determines your financial class... There's plenty of poor white people too. All across the board maybe not as many but on an individual to individual basis u can be rich or poor in any background

 

Secondly that wasn't my point. I'm talking about how u can disagree with a certain policy and that doesn't necessarily have to make u ignorant... I think it's extremely rude and judgemental to call anyone that doesn't agree with you ignorant

 

Some people's reason for disagreeing with some left wing policies has nothing to do with caring or not caring about the issue. Sometimes it's a matter of worrying about the potential for stuff to backfire or make matters worse

 

Ppl need to understand that not supporting something is not automatically the same as thinking the problem doesn't exist. That is oversimplifying matters

 

For example I'm against rent price control. But it's NOT because I'm I wanna take the side of rich land Lords or because I don't know the struggle (I've gone nearly bankrupt before in part because of crazy rents in my city)

 

I'm against rent control because I saw how these rules discouraged builders from building rental units and the short supply made the issue worse long term... Recently they relaxed those laws and guess what? Rental unit permit applications nearly tripled in Ontario!

 

Some left wingers need to start understanding that not being in favour of a policy is not necessarily as simple as we don't care about it or don't think it's an issue. more often than not it's because we fear some unintentional conveniences from those policies that could be worse than what it's trying to solve

 

Regardless of whether or not u agree with the analysis... Ppl can have reasoning behind their opinions and just labeling people ignorant or priveledged is not only judgemental it's also rude

 

Anyway I was never against safety nets. I'm against the attitudes of some of the left in debates. That's what I was talking about

 

Setting this whole debate aside im sorry about your situation. My dad's sister (my aunt) also had to raise 3 children alone and on top of that with a disability from an injury. If my grandparents and my dad didn't pitch in I don't know what she would of done

[TheQueenEnthusiast 937]

On 12/4/2019 at 6:18 PM, thedirtymonster said:

There are many other approaches that could be taken to lower health care costs, and get us to "Universal" healthcare. There are bills RIGHT NOW on Mitch McConnell's desk that would do just that. One, put forth by Amy Klobuchar, would allow us in the United States to purchase pharmaceuticals from other countries for a FRACTION of the cost they're charging in the United States. Another, also put forth by Ms. Klobuchar, would allow Medicare to negotiate prices, a practice that is currently illegal. Further, we need to get the Public Option passed, so people who want to stay on their insurance can stay on their insurance, and those who prefer Medicare, can buy into that.

...And how DARE you throw in supporting LGBT rights as a basis for supporting Medicare for Freaking All?! I want everyone to have healthcare, of course, especially in my own community, but Medicare for All is not the answer for that. As a matter of fact, supporting that idea is counteractive! Our government was designed to work slowly to avoid catastrophic mistakes. Progress is achieved through hard work and determination, reaching across the aisle, having debates, and bringing other people around to a common viewpoint. Electing a left-wing liberal who only demands their way or nothing would not achieve anything. As a matter of fact, it would play into the Republicans' idea that Democrats are all socialists who want to destroy the American dream and the prospect of entrepreneurship. They'd shut down and nothing would get accomplished. The root of "Progressive" is "Progress", and the only people I see actually making progress are those who understand this.
 

The same government that thought slaves and woman only deserved a fraction of the humanity white men get. I am screeching!!!! LOL. And actually after the AIDs epidemic in the 80s a HUGE growing support of universal healthcare happened (it's still going on). Not to mention the massive amounts of coverage trans-people get. And literally who cares what Republicans think? They binge onto ideas that literally aren't plausible. I grow tired. 

[Economy 52,931]

10 minutes ago, TheQueenEnthusiast said:

The same government that thought slaves and woman only deserved a fraction of the humanity white men get. I am screeching!!!! LOL. And actually after the AIDs epidemic in the 80s a HUGE growing support of universal healthcare happened (it's still going on). Not to mention the massive amounts of coverage trans-people get. And literally who cares what Republicans think? They binge onto ideas that literally aren't plausible. I grow tired. 

And just think of how much military cuts alone could fund healthcare

 

It's almost one fifth of the entire budget

[TheQueenEnthusiast 937]

6 minutes ago, Economy said:

First of all... Race alone isn't all that determines your financial class... There's plenty of poor white people too. All across the board maybe not as many but on an individual to individual basis u can be rich or poor in any background

 

Secondly that wasn't my point. I'm talking about how u can disagree with a certain policy and that doesn't necessarily have to make u ignorant... I think it's extremely rude and judgemental to call anyone that doesn't agree with you ignorant

 

Some people's reason for disagreeing with some left wing policies has nothing to do with caring or not caring about the issue. Sometimes it's a matter of worrying about the potential for stuff to backfire or make matters worse

 

Ppl need to understand that not supporting something is not automatically the same as thinking the problem doesn't exist. That is oversimplifying matters

 

For example I'm against rent price control. But it's NOT because I'm I wanna take the side of rich land Lords or because I don't know the struggle (I've gone nearly bankrupt before in part because of crazy rents in my city)

 

I'm against rent control because I saw how these rules discouraged builders from building rental units and the short supply made the issue worse long term... Recently they relaxed those laws and guess what? Rental unit permit applications nearly tripled in Ontario!

 

Some left wingers need to start understanding that not being in favour of a policy is not necessarily as simple as we don't care about it or don't think it's an issue. more often than not it's because we fear some unintentional conveniences from those policies that could be worse than what it's trying to solve

 

Regardless of whether or not u agree with the analysis... Ppl can have reasoning behind their opinions and just labeling people ignorant or priveledged is not only judgemental it's also rude

 

Anyway I was never against safety nets. I'm against the attitudes of some of the left in debates. That's what I was talking about

 

Setting this whole debate aside im sorry about your situation. My dad's sister (my aunt) also had to raise 3 children alone and on top of that with a disability from an injury. If my grandparents and my dad didn't pitch in I don't know what she would of done

Centrist policies in the US are on a global scale are just right wing. Again. I grow *mentally* tired. I'm not having this discussion lol. 

[TheQueenEnthusiast 937]

Thank you for your words regarding my background though. 

[Economy 52,931]

9 minutes ago, TheQueenEnthusiast said:

Centrist policies in the US are on a global scale are just right wing. Again. I grow *mentally* tired. I'm not having this discussion lol. 

I think ur missing my point entirely. Ur arguing something totally different here

 

I wasn't disagreeing with u about free healthcare (In fact I support it) I wasn't even talking about what I think u might be right or wrong in

 

I was merely talking about attitudes and replies

 

I also was trying to point out a side point that when someone disagrees with some specific left policy (whether they are correct to or not) there's often a reason that goes beyond just not caring or acknowledging there's an issue

 

Policies having unintended consequences unfortunately is a pretty common thing and sometimes debates or lack of support stem from worries about what those conveniences might be. Not everyone who doesn't want to increase funding to a certain program automatically means they just don't care about that issue (although sometimes it can be the case)

 

That's why I think comments like "your ignorant" or assuming someone is just priveledged for having a certain opinion is rude. That's literally all I was saying

 

Even if your right and they are wrong. As long as they have some kind of logical reasoning as to why they don't support something, that's not really being ignorant

 

Ppl can have differences of opinion and shouldn't have to be replied to like that for it

[TheQueenEnthusiast 937]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

I think ur missing my point entirely. Ur arguing something totally different here

 

I wasn't disagreeing with u about free healthcare (In fact I support it) I wasn't even talking about what I think u might be right or wrong in

 

I was merely talking about attitudes and replies

 

I also was trying to point out a side point that when someone disagrees with some specific left policy (whether they are correct to or not) there's often a reason that goes beyond just not caring or acknowledging there's an issue

 

Policies having unintended consequences unfortunately is a pretty common thing and sometimes debates or lack of support stem from worries about what those conveniences might be. Not everyone who doesn't want to increase funding to a certain program automatically means they just don't care about that issue (although sometimes it can be the case)

 

That's why I think comments like "your ignorant" or assuming someone is just priveledged for having a certain opinion is rude. That's literally all I was saying

 

Ppl can have differences of opinion and shouldn't have to be replied to like that for it

I'm saying I should. Right politics is simply never, ironically, right. Ever. They are anti-LGBTQ, they are anti-women, they are pro-war, they are pro-rich. I stated that so-called centrist politics in the US are literally just right politics. I don't have any empathy for Americans who are centrist especially when they have access to capital and resources. Opinions are not valid when they're incorrect opinions especially when they negatively affect the livelihood of marginalized people. 

[NCgaga 4,345]

America's healthcare is insanely good. You just can't afford it if your job doesn't supply if for you. My insurance is provided by the company I work for, so I'm lucky in that regard, because I went years without it. I just wonder, if we did Medicare for All, or Universal Healthcare, If the quality of healthcare would go down, and the American HealthCare overall would become less innovative? Visiting other countries who do have universal healthcare, the quality is drastically different and that worries me. Though, these countries typically have a longer lifespan. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

13 minutes ago, Economy said:

First of all... Race alone isn't all that determines your financial class... There's plenty of poor white people too. All across the board maybe not as many but on an individual to individual basis u can be rich or poor in any background

Secondly that wasn't my point. I'm talking about how u can disagree with a certain policy and that doesn't necessarily have to make u ignorant... I think it's extremely rude and judgemental to call anyone that doesn't agree with you ignorant

Some people's reason for disagreeing with some left wing policies has nothing to do with caring or not caring about the issue. Sometimes it's a matter of worrying about the potential for stuff to backfire or make matters worse

Ppl need to understand that not supporting something is not automatically the same as thinking the problem doesn't exist. That is oversimplifying matters

For example I'm against rent price control. But it's NOT because I'm I wanna take the side of rich land Lords or because I don't know the struggle (I've gone nearly bankrupt before in part because of crazy rents in my city)

I'm against rent control because I saw how these rules discouraged builders from building rental units and the short supply made the issue worse long term... Recently they relaxed those laws and guess what? Rental unit permit applications nearly tripled in Ontario!

Some left wingers need to start understanding that not being in favour of a policy is not necessarily as simple as we don't care about it or don't think it's an issue. more often than not it's because we fear some unintentional conveniences from those policies that could be worse than what it's trying to solve

Regardless of whether or not u agree with the analysis... Ppl can have reasoning behind their opinions and just labeling people ignorant or priveledged is not only judgemental it's also rude

Anyway I was never against safety nets. I'm against the attitudes of some of the left in debates. That's what I was talking about

Setting this whole debate aside im sorry about your situation. My dad's sister (my aunt) also had to raise 3 children alone and on top of that with a disability from an injury. If my grandparents and my dad didn't pitch in I don't know what she would of done

Can you acknowledge that many aren't in favor of policies not because they don't like them or don't think they will work, but because they don't want to understand them? I'm not saying if everyone was informed everyone would support xyz stance because its obviously correct - That's not it at all, people have different worldviews. We've had this discussion before. If you disagree with a policy, tell me why you disagree with it - don't deflect.

If I point out an inaccuracy in your position ...let's say you don't like Medicare for All because you don't want to pay more money than you do now. If I correct you that the income tax you pay will be offset by thousands that you will save by not having to pay premiums, deductibles, and co-payments and you will therefore actually be saving money... Doesn't that mean your reason for disliking the policy isn't applicable anymore? Why is the answer to this "Ugh, annoying leftists and Bros cant accept that we just don't like their policies and don't think they will work!" instead of "Oh, I wasn't aware that that's how much I would be saving."  We're so absolutely resistant to concessions, or changing our minds, its really ridiculous to me. Like, I want what is best for all people, and always want people to be informed enough to make their own decisions, literally. If you make all of your political decisions based on lies, aren't those decisions less likely to be effective in achieving what you want by design? 

When people on the left correct people about policy, they often don't want to hear it and just say "I disagree." or they deflect to some personal attack about Bernie Sanders, his supporters, leftism, etc.  Isn't that the definition of willful ignorance? Shouldn't we strive to dislike things for... what they actually are? It's literally the entire reasoning that stereotypes, racism, sexism, etc. are considered bad   It's why exposure to new things, people, information, and experience reduces bigotry.

When you have an idea in your mind of someone or something and that is negative, you dislike it. If you learn that the thing you didn't like actually isn't bad, people tend to overcome those things... But they were *literally* ignorant before. It's not being used as an insult. To me, that would be calling someone stupid, dumb, etc. Or using "ignorant" to mean "unsophisticated, or dimwitted" as opposed to "lacking knowledge about a subject." That's why I like to say "X promotes Ignorance" or a position is "misinformed/uninformed" as opposed to flat out calling individuals "ignorant." 

[NCgaga 4,345]

8 minutes ago, TheQueenEnthusiast said:

I'm saying I should. Right politics is simply never, ironically, right. Ever. They are anti-LGBTQ, they are anti-women, they are pro-war, they are pro-rich. I stated that so-called centrist politics in the US are literally just right politics. I don't have any empathy for Americans who are centrist especially when they have access to capital and resources. Opinions are not valid when they're incorrect opinions especially when they negatively affect the livelihood of marginalized people. 

I think you are speaking for Centrists who tend to lean more right, than left- you're grouping them all together, which is never a good thing. You must be careful not to group people like that, because then you spread a false narrative for the other centrists that you are chosing not to speak for.  A lot centrists are pro social topics such as issues with gender, LGBTQ, race, etc but a little more conservative economically.  I get so sick of people on the left who want to go after Centrists for not agreeing with EVERY SINGLE THING on the left. These people will actually help with the election, so quit trying to divide the centrists from the left as well. 

[Economy 52,931]

1 minute ago, TheQueenEnthusiast said:

I'm saying I should. Right politics is simply never, ironically, right. Ever. They are anti-LGBTQ, they are anti-women, they are pro-war, they are pro-rich. I stated that so-called centrist politics in the US are literally just right politics. I don't have any empathy for Americans who are centrist especially when they have access to capital and resources. Opinions are not valid when they're incorrect opinions especially when they negatively affect the livelihood of marginalized people. 

Yes I totally agree with the bold part there. There's some ideals on the right that clearly are just outright discriminatory

 

But I also don't think every left wing policy is always automatically good either. Such as the rent control and the issues is caused in my Province

 

Good intentions don't always equal good results...

 

I think society and economics is far too complicated to be able to say one political side is right on everything and the other side is wrong on everything. I don't think it's that simple and I don't think any ideology is always gonna have the answers for it all

 

But at the end of the day I believe strongly in civilized discussion provided no one is going to the extreme of hatred (like someone making racist or homophobic remarks)

 

If someone thinks they are right on everything and can't have a discussion without calling someone else ignorant when they don't agree on a point, I don't think they belong on the debate table tbh

 

As human being who should be working to be more and more civilized... We should know better than that. Insults don't yield any results... Only hostility and make one not take another seriously

 

That's my honest opinion. I don't think I can word what I'm trying to say any differently

 

But back on what u were saying about US politics I have to agree with that... The standards of US left and right are different from the typical developed nation

 

For example Here in Canada for examples our conservatives main pledge was to cut bottom income taxes and make maternity leave benefits tax free because corporate taxes were already low enough... I certainly don't see US Republicans every taking that's stance

[Economy 52,931]

14 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Can you acknowledge that many aren't in favor of policies not because they don't like them or don't think they will work, but because they don't want to understand them? I'm not saying if everyone was informed everyone would support xyz stance because its obviously correct - That's not it at all, people have different worldviews. We've had this discussion before. If you disagree with a policy, tell me why you disagree with it - don't deflect.

If I point out an inaccuracy in your position ...let's say you don't like Medicare for All because you don't want to pay more money than you do now. If I correct you that the income tax you pay will be offset by thousands that you will save by not having to pay premiums, deductibles, and co-payments and you will therefore actually be saving money... Doesn't that mean your reason for disliking the policy isn't applicable anymore? Why is the answer to this "Ugh, annoying leftists and Bros cant accept that we just don't like their policies and don't think they will work!" instead of "Oh, I wasn't aware that that's how much I would be saving."  We're so absolutely resistant to concessions, or changing our minds, its really ridiculous to me. Like, I want what is best for all people, and always want people to be informed enough to make their own decisions, literally. If you make all of your political decisions based on lies, aren't those decisions less likely to be effective in achieving what you want by design? 

When people on the left correct people about policy, they often don't want to hear it and just say "I disagree." or they deflect to some personal attack about Bernie Sanders, his supporters, leftism, etc.  Isn't that the definition of willful ignorance? Shouldn't we strive to dislike things for... what they actually are? It's literally the entire reasoning that stereotypes, racism, sexism, etc. are considered bad   It's why exposure to new things, people, information, and experience reduces bigotry.

When you have an idea in your mind of someone or something and that is negative, you dislike it. If you learn that the thing you didn't like actually isn't bad, people tend to overcome those things... But they were *literally* ignorant before. It's not being used as an insult. To me, that would be calling someone stupid, dumb, etc. Or using "ignorant" to mean "unsophisticated, or dimwitted" as opposed to "lacking knowledge about a subject." That's why I like to say "X promotes Ignorance" or a position is "misinformed/uninformed" as opposed to flat out calling individuals "ignorant." 

Yes we did already discuss this and you are correct in all u just said but I was replying to somebody else who was calling someone else ignorant for disagreeing and I was refering to those individuals on the left who don't want to exchange reasons for disagreeing

 

I'm not talking about people like you. U have proven to be more than fair in how u debate

 

 

 

[Economy 52,931]

19 minutes ago, NCgaga said:

America's healthcare is insanely good. You just can't afford it if your job doesn't supply if for you. My insurance is provided by the company I work for, so I'm lucky in that regard, because I went years without it. I just wonder, if we did Medicare for All, or Universal Healthcare, If the quality of healthcare would go down, and the American HealthCare overall would become less innovative? Visiting other countries who do have universal healthcare, the quality is drastically different and that worries me. Though, these countries typically have a longer lifespan. 

The US health system is good and faster but there's a couple key things to consider

 

#1 it's faster in part because not everyone can access it or not access it as frequently so demand per capita is lower... If you think about it, that's a pretty terrible reason for a system being faster.

 

#2 it's not just the system but it's also the funding put into it

 

For example Canada is a fiscally conservative nation. We ran budget surpluses for 20 years from 1997 to 2008 before the recession hit and payed debt... We have not been in surplus since the great recession but still keep our deficits low and our government debt is one of the lowest in developed world

 

To be fiscally responsible we have to be careful with expenditures that includes healthcare...

 

But if we wanted to run bigger deficits and increase healthcare spending nothing is stopping us

 

The US system already costs more per capita anyway and the US already overspends a lot on everything. Might as well overpend on a system that actually covers everyone

 

The amount of money that the US system already costs could easily provide a faster better quality system than we have in Canada

 

The US is one of the few developed Nations where life expectancy still hasn't hit 80. I think that should say something tbh

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

3 hours ago, NCgaga said:

America's healthcare is insanely good. You just can't afford it if your job doesn't supply if for you. My insurance is provided by the company I work for, so I'm lucky in that regard, because I went years without it. I just wonder, if we did Medicare for All, or Universal Healthcare, If the quality of healthcare would go down, and the American HealthCare overall would become less innovative? Visiting other countries who do have universal healthcare, the quality is drastically different and that worries me. Though, these countries typically have a longer lifespan. 

Most studies would disagree with you unfortunately. It's certainly not bad in the sense that we produce bad doctors, bad medicine, bad bedside manner, etc., but its bad in that the best of it is mostly unobtainable for the regular person, its not always accessible, it is expensive, and it is often last minute, emergency care and not standard preventative care. Also, our mental healthcare is... garbage. All of these factors create a system in which we spend an exorbitant amount of money, sometimes two times as much, but for less effective results than any other developed country. I'll bring back this image:
 
Look at America. The left axis is spending, the right is life expectancy.

But to your point, No, there's not any reason that Universal Healthcare in America should result in any sort of significant quality drop in care or innovation, - if anything, it will result in equalizing the quality of care between people of different classes. Currently, rich people have access to the best doctors, can afford the best treatment and care and procedures, and are also covered for them. Poor people have the least access to healthcare at all, and something like getting the *best* doctor without the right insurance (they aren't in network lets say) would bankrupt you or deplete your life's savings very rapidly. Some 500,000 people are estimated to go bankrupt because of or relating to medical care each year. Middle class people are in the middle, with decent to good doctors and care, but sometimes lacking the coverage (e.g. income) to afford them. With Universal Health Care, the *best* doctors will be more likely to treat regular middle and working class people, which results in a higher quality of care.

The innovation in drug production, research, and procedures in America is currently actually funded majorly by tax payers and done at college campuses, labs, and research/teaching facilities. That won't change under M4A.  Really, the innovation that exists as a result of the competition of competing doctors, insurers, drug companies, etc. is actually minimized  by the corruption of our system. Competition can create and inspire Innovation, yes but it can also artificialize or inflate innovation because sometimes innovation isn't as marketable or profitable as sub-standard or standard care. To give an example, It might not be in the best interests of a drug company to promote and fund research into a life saving drug that could cure a disease quickly when its cheaper and more profitable to continue or improve production on a drug that does not cure a disease, but extends the life of a person. (We have a lot of reactionary care, very little preventitive or definitive care for a reason!)  This drug would requires potentially months and years of treatment, so it makes more money. Normally, other competitors would just eventually create this miracle drug on their own, but we live in a society (in America specifically) where drug companies and pharmaceutical companies and private health insurers and even hospitals are able to monopolize each other, diluting the "freedom" of markets. One conglomerate could own a company that researches and creates a miracle drug, but decide not to support it because they also own the company that makes the stand-by drug, and that drug is more profitable for them. Does this make sense? There are real world examples of this, but I'm going off the top of my head at the moment. 

[Economy 52,931]

5 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Most studies would disagree with you unfortunately. It's certainly not bad in the sense that we produce bad doctors, bad medicine, bad bedside manner, etc., but its bad in that the best of it is mostly unobtainable for the regular person, its not always accessible, it is expensive, and it is often last minute, emergency care and not standard preventative care. Also, our mental healthcare is... garbage. All of these factors create a system in which we spend an exorbitant amount of money, sometimes two times as much, but for less effective results than any other developed country. I'll bring back this image:
 
Look at America. The left axis is spending, the right is life expectancy.

But to your point, No, there's not any reason that Universal Healthcare in America should result in any sort of significant quality drop in care or innovation, - if anything, it will result in equalizing the quality of care between people of different classes. Currently, rich people have access to the best doctors, can afford the best treatment and care and procedures, and are also covered for them. Poor people have the least access to healthcare at all, and something like getting the *best* doctor without the right insurance (they aren't in network lets say) would bankrupt you or deplete your life's savings very rapidly. Some 500,000 people are estimated to go bankrupt because of or relating to medical care each year. With Universal Health Care, the *best* doctors will be more likely to treat regular middle and working class people, which results in a higher quality of care.

The innovation in drug production, research, and procedures in America is currently actually funded majorly by tax payers and done at college campuses, labs, and research/teaching facilities. That won't change under M4A.  Really, the innovation that exists as a result of the competition of competing doctors, insurers, drug companies, etc. is actually minimized  by the corruption of our system. Competition can create and inspire Innovation, yes but it can also artificialize or inflate innovation because sometimes innovation isn't as marketable or profitable as sub-standard or standard care. To give an example, It might not be in the best interests of a drug company to promote and fund research into a life saving drug that could cure a disease quickly when its cheaper and more profitable to continue or improve production on a drug that does not cure a disease, but extends the life of a person. (We have a lot of reactionary care, very little preventitive or definitive care for a reason!)  This drug would requires potentially months and years of treatment, so it makes more money. Normally, other competitors would possibly create this miracle drug on their own, but we live in a society (in America specifically) where drug companies and pharmaceutical companies and private health insurers and even hospitals are able to monopolizing each other, diluting the "freedom" of markets. One conglomerate could own a company that researches and creates a miracle drug, but decide not to support it because they also own the company that makes the stand-by drug, and that drug is more profitable for them. Does this make sense? There are real world examples of this, but I'm going off the top of my head at the moment. 

I would like to point out one thing tho... I don't think the issue of prevention is a unique problem to the US

 

I mean I can't speak for the rest of the world but here in Canada it's the exact same sh*t

 

U get prescribed a pill to help with a symptom often without going after the root causes

 

For example when I was hospitalized for 2 weeks over a suicide attempt and they always checked our vitals, they saw my blood pressure was high and put me on blood pressure pills and sent a note to my family doctor about the meds they recommend I continue

 

Did they even ask me about my salt intake or exercise before putting me on a prescription? No they did not