Republicans
“The government shouldn’t control anything”
“The government needs to ban abortion people tho”
Republicans Republicans*
Can’t even read the memes… I’m going back to Reddit.
/s
Yeah this is why I hate anarchism. Obviously we need a state to enforce all the human rights violations /s
In a true anarchist society, what stops the very same people who are committing human rights violations now under the guise of government from doing the same thing as freelancers?
The libertarians and social conservatives on the right are usually at odds with one another.
Both sides suck, but at least the Democrats don’t want to turn America into an ultra-capitalist evangelical dictatorship and a white ethnostate.
Anyone saying “both sides” is a lying right troll, period.
I can already hear the arguments ringing in my head. This is a matter that is near and dear to my heart. As a disclaimer, I’m Canadian, if the USA doesn’t want cheap insulin, I can’t really do anything to stop that.
With all that being said, I have a family member who is a type 1 diabetic. I have experienced the following, ignorant, argument from enough people that I’m pretty sure those that voted against this, at least in part, believe. Diabetes is a self inflicted condition that you can cure with proper diet and exercise. While that argument could be true for some portion of type 2 diabetes, it is wholly untrue for T1D. I won’t speculate on how many people are in that scenario with type 2, so I’ll focus on my main argument.
Type 1 diabetes, sometimes also referred to as juvenile diabetes, isn’t exclusive to young people. It’s diagnosed young, which gives it the “juvenile” title. Type 2 is generally a problem that comes with age (and sometimes obesity), so it’s referred to as “adult” diabetes. I’ll point out these “titles” only apply to when you are likely to be diagnosed with it and have nothing to do with how long you’ll have it. Type 1 is typically caused by the pancreas being unable to function. Sometimes there’s a little function, but in general, it’s an issue with the pancreas itself, which will not heal. The cause of the dysfunction is varied and not relevant to the point, but genetics, disease, injury, etc, can all play a role in it. The fact is, the pancreas does not, and will never, operate correctly. For a T1D, the only “diet” that can keep their condition in check is essentially starvation, resulting in death, which would arguably cure the disease. You can’t be unwell if you’re dead.
People with T1D didn’t ask for it, they didn’t do anything that gave them the condition. They can’t do anything that relieves the condition. They are obligated to take insulin, or die. Shit choice if you ask me. Forcing diabetics to essentially pay to live is cruel, at the same time, producing a medical/pharmaceutical grade substance costs money and someone has to pay for it. Limiting the cost of insulin to a reasonable amount that can adequately cover the costs of production is the compromise. So those who are unemployed and/or underpaid can still afford to live.
Insulin for type 2 diabetics, which usually comes as a pill, whereas type 1 generally needs an injection, can be the exception if you’re hellbent on “punishing” those that “do it to themselves”, but even for that, you’ll get an argument from me. There’s a gap in knowledge for what is proper nutrition, and how to take care of yourself in such a way that you won’t end up obese. Many people who can take care of themselves, learned these traits at home. A nontrivial amount of the population didn’t get this same education and think that fast food is good food, or at least adequate; or that frozen is a good alternative to fresh, since fresh doesn’t really keep very long, which can be true for some things, but I assure you that buying a 1KG frozen lasagna that feeds 4, isn’t a good, singular meal for one person.
I’m not here to lecture anyone on diet and nutrition, I’m only trying to point out that the misconceptions about what is good or healthy for you to eat, are very common. The education system hasn’t done anything to fix this. Not really. I was taught the food pyramid, which, I believe, at the time, it was not considered a good guide on nutrition, at the very least. It’s basically speculation from the 70s that’s essentially pseudo science. Learning and having good nutrition is kind of a joke at this point, at least when it comes to public education. Add that to the fact that almost everything that’s made is laced, injected, or otherwise coated in sugars, and you get a recipe for obesity and eventually type 2 diabetes. I’m certain a nontrivial number of type 2 diabetics didn’t learn about proper nutrition until they became diabetic. At that point, changing your eating habits for the better, isn’t an easy task.
So, I would argue that for many type 2 sufferers, they’re simply a product of a system (that we designed) which failed them. They were not taught, nor given the required knowledge to adequately avoid contracting the disorder.
IMO, anyone against a cap on insulin is either poorly informed, or cruel. If you know how and why both types of diabetes exists, then you’re cruel if you don’t want a cap on the prices. If you don’t, you need education to learn about it and why, for many, it’s not really a choice.
I’ll add the disclaimer that I’m sure there are those out there that are type 2 diabetics who knew all along and essentially did it to themselves. I will only say this about it: there’s no reasonable way to have them monetarily pay for their choices, without significantly and negatively impacting those who did not have a choice in the matter.
And even to those that did it to themselves. Why would you want to financially ruin or straight up killing people for making mistakes? That,is simply sadistic and very much unchristian of the so outspoken Christians of the GOP
Didn’t someone once say that they “liked” Christ, but didn’t like Christians because they were so “un-christ-like” or something?
I seem to recall that, and I’ve always regarded it as the most apt description of most Western religious beliefs.
You could raise a tax on sweets and sugary beverages and use it to subsidize insulin production. That way the ones that ate themselves to diabetes at least disproportionately pay for it.
That is a good idea, but frankly speaking the reason for the high price is neither demand nor supply. It’s medical companies purposely demanding a high price because of a lack of necessity to lower it. Not that there’s no competition, though it is small, they simply cartellized and no one actually cares. It is the epitome of what capitalism needs to control for it to continue working. There’s no place in the world where insurances pay as much for insulin. (I mean insurances don’t pay as much for any medication as IS citizens do, but that’s because they can flatly deny companies any sales and leverage them to lower their prices. ) US citizens are getting fucked over royally by pharmaceutical companies simply because the spokespeople, the elected attorneys of the people, refuse to cover the backs of the people. They’d rather profit from exploiting the basic needs of the people. It could also be a way to control them - but that would be a dangerous assumption
Right. The fucked up US healthcare system is a whole other can of worms. My suggestion was meant to be after insulin has been priced fairly.
Me here buying entire month worth of insulin for 10$ in India without arguing over morality and ethics.
I don’t know why Americans have made it so complicated. Large number of people need it, make it first priority to set cost as low as possible. Profiting over starving people of medical supplies is completely ignored and instead other ethical points are brought up.
The arguments I hear most around this kind of stuff is something along the lines of, “the innovators have a right to charge however much the market will bear” and, “if we take away the incentive to innovate, these drugs will not exist.”
My thoughts against these lines is that patents cause monopolies, so they are not “free markets,” and there would still be an incentive to innovate because of things like the first-mover advantage, and that reducing costs is also a form of innovation.
My thoughts against “punishment” arguments, are that punishment just for punishment’s sake is cruel, useless, and often counter-productive. I don’t think people have as much agency as we’d like to think. In the case of type-2 diabetes, insulin is part of the rehabilitation.
I’m sure we could go deep into rehab and how it’s a net-good for society, but given your comments so far, I feel it would be a lot like preaching to the choir.
Rehab in all forms is good, whether physical rehabilitation, mental, or medical/drug related.
More healthy people in society means a more productive society. Period. Charging people out the ass to simply live and exist without constant discomfort is detrimental to the productivity of our society at large. Rehab is one tool to help society obtain and maintain a high level of productivity continually.
There’s obviously more to the discussion of productivity but it kind of falls outside the context of the discussion.
or almost as if most politicians are nothing but puppets to more powerful organisations
Ah there’s that “both sides” again
But think of those poor multi billions pharmaceuticals and their struggling investors and stock holders.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/04/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-secure-the-border/ Biden has the most funding and strictest punishments for the border in us history. Just because Republicans are evil doesn’t mean Democrats aren’t. Both parties are upholding the colonist American government, that has persecuted poc and indigenous peoples especially. Vote for Harris but don’t be fooled into thinking either party will make this country better.
Harris isn’t Biden, though. What’s her position on the border?
It’s a shame you’re getting downvotes.
You’re only pointing out that both parties are incredibly shitty in their own rights, which is something that is undeniably true. Despite that, you still advocate for voting against the orange dictator.
I guess people are missing the point and interpreting your comment as “both sides bad vote neither”
They’re going downvotes because their comment makes no sense. If both parties are exactly the same, why does it matter whom people vote for? Either tell people to stay home, or admit one side is worse. How can you not see that?
It sounds like you think that you can give a party a letter grade, like there’s a linear scale with “bad” on one end and “good” on the other. Parties are going to be better on some issues and worse on others, and of course it varies from politician to politician, too.
This comment is such a damning insight into liberal logic. Incredible.
They really see it in black and white. Blue MAGA indeed.
No, they’re downvoting because it’s obvious Russian propaganda.
I would agree if they either came from Lemmygrad, or were saying to vote independent/not vote. Maybe I’m being more charitable towards them than most, but their comment reads to me as someone disillusioned who thinks both parties have their own priorities that aren’t the people.
That IS Russian propaganda. “Both sides”.
I’m not trying to be obtuse here, but let me get this straight:
It’s Russian propaganda for someone to say that both of the only two viable parties in the United States election suck?
The way I’ve been categorizing it has been whether the person is trying to encourage others to abstain from voting or voting for a third party. In my opinion, expressing an unpopular opinion is different than trying to get people to waste their important anti-Trump vote.
The way I’ve been categorizing it has been whether the person is trying to encourage others to abstain from voting or voting for a third party.
Sounds like you’re only categorizing it as propaganda if they explicitly call for someone to not vote. “Both sides suck” is essentially the same thing, just without the explicit call to inaction. Not to mention the secondary benefit of painting over the GOPs crimes by making it sound like the dems are just as bad.
At what point did they say both parties are exactly the same? They said both parties are evil, and both parties support colonialism. The commenter is evidently disillusioned with the two party system, but they aren’t stupidly saying to not vote Democrat. They’re asserting that neither party will make the country better.
While the idea of better is highly subjective, let’s try being charitable and see it from the commenter’s viewpoint: They sound like a socialist, so let’s assume they want political reform and more legislation to protect the poor or working class. In the current two-party system, everything is gradually shifting right. The Republicans are more brazen about their goals with shit like Project 2025, while the Democrats only have to be less regressive than the Republicans to have a successful platform. The Republicans don’t want reform, and there isn’t any incentive for the Democrats to implement progressive changes (such as implementing RCV, banning gerrymandering, introducing SCOTUS term limits, etc.) when they can be equally successful by simply reverting the damage done by the Republicans. Considering that perspective, they’re correct in saying neither party will make things “better.” The part that isn’t said directly but can be inferred is that one of the parties will make things worse much quicker than the other.
Repubs convincing working-class people that they’re on their side is the biggest con of my lifetime. I don’t know how they managed that, but it’s insanely wrong. Wait, now I remember. It’s all about hating the same people. That’s all that matters.
I’m a school bus driver and we’re unionized (Teamsters) yet most of my co-workers are Trump supporters. We even have a few lesbians and they’re still trumpers. You’re right: the one thing they have in common is that they all really hate black people.
“This is corruption”
“This is lobbying”
No, it’s FUCKING EVIL
Those people are evil enough to put money ahead of the health of other humans
And if you stand by and watch people doing evil things and just say “Well, it’s lobbying” you’re a wretched coward
It’s all of the above, comrade
It’s worse. They put money above the life of other humans. Type 1 diabetics literally cannot live without insulin… Not for very long at least (days at most).
And it’s not a nice death either. Anyone who has seen, first hand, the effects of diabetic ketoacidosis, can confirm.
We see pictures all the time of dafties walking about with signs in the US protesting all sorts of inane, brain-damaged shite
How the fuck are yous not standing outside these evil fuckers’ houses with signs?
“This evil cunt chose to kill diabetics because some evil cunt gave him cash. Let’s hang him from a fucking tree, he’s an absolute cancer on society”
How are yous just sitting back and watching?!?
I’m not doing shit because I’m not an American.
Thank fuck for that. This shit is goddamned embarrassing.
I think my country just passed a law saying that our national healthcare system would cover insulin and diabetic equipment. I don’t have all the details, but the fact that it took this long to do is pretty fucking embarrassing in and of itself.
That being said, at least we got there. The USA can’t even agree to not bankrupt people for having a very manageable condition (with proper medication at least).
In terms of the world’s wealth, if you own a million dollars US or more - you’re one of the top 1%, richest people on the planet.
This means ALL of the people in Congress and the Senate are in the top 1%, or being very close to it.
America is ruled by a wealthy ruling class.
A quick search shows that $5.8 million is the threshold to be in the top 1% net worth in the US.
You are comparing apples and oranges on purpose by comparing US lawmakers, making laws for the USA, against the world top 1% metric.
Except no. US laws often have global significance. Like wars and resource grabs and stuff. So we should absolutely be using the world as a standard.
The problem there is he said worldwide, not in the US. The searches I’m doing for amount of wealth needed to be in the top 1% worldwide does seem to be around a million dollars. And I mean since a lot of what the US does affects the rest of the world through US companies and the influence the US has you can definitely argue we are led by the 1% who are enacting laws to benefit themselves and the people in their class.
America is ruled by a wealthy ruling class.
Always has been.
Huh, I was going to comment something about how the global top 1% has a lower threshold than that, but it really doesn’t. $1M of wealth would put you in the top 0.7%.
And apparently the top 0.7% hold 45.9% of global wealth. The top 30% hold 97% of wealth.
In the USA, the threshold for top 1% of net worth is $5.8 million.
Not saying that congress isn’t disproportionately rich, but 1% absolutely does not start at $1 million.
if you have a million you’re one of the richest ON THE PLANET
The planet is bigger than the USA buddy
Yeah, but being richer on paper than some Sudanese warlord doesn’t make it any easier for me to afford a house. Are you seriously gonna argue that we should just ignore the huge differences in the cost of living between countries?
It certainly is, but when we’re talking about US leadership, global wealth comparisons are irrelevant when talking about the moneyed elites. It needs to be national comparisons.
If you only looked at global wealth metrics, you’d think the US was full of rich people who could afford everything, and it very clearly is not the case. There’s plenty of Americans living in poverty and paycheck to paycheck, even though their wealth would be considered high globally. You have to normalize by cost of living. If someone makes $1m annually but they spend $975k to meet the bare minimum, are they rich?
You’re conflating two things here. You’re taking the top 1% of global wealth and equating that with America and saying it means they’re a wealthy ruling class.
Which I don’t necessarily disagree with in fact, but the premise of your argument is flawed. You need to look at what the top 1% in the US is. The US is heavily skewed towards the top of global wealth in general.
It would be like saying the US is mainly oligarchs and there aren’t people suffering because Americans tend to have more wealth than others. You have to normalize it within the country – or at least against a cost of living index.
if you own a million dollars US or more - you’re one of the top 1%, richest people on the planet.
Is an American with a small house in some hyper-inflated corner of the California real estate market really wealthier than a guy out in Malaysia or Nigeria who owes property that’s 1/10th the price but can pay $2/day for an army of laborers?
I think this puts too much faith in the value of the American dollar relative to the functional value of real estate and human labor trading at a fraction of the price thousands of miles away. Real wealth needs to have some degree of political power behind it. A guy with a $500 rifle who can command a hundred acres of turf and a thousand other people is - in my opinion - substantially wealthier than a guy with a $500,000 condo who owes his continued existence to some Madison Avenue ad agency.
This means ALL of the people in Congress and the Senate are in the top 1%
All the people in Congress and the Senate command votes in one of the wealthiest political bodies on the planet. Having a 1/438 share in the $5T us appropriations budget is worth far more than a piddly million dollars in a savings account.
one of the requirements of getting into congress or senate should be that when you are getting in AND out you should donate any sum of assets exceeding a couple millions. then anyone wanting to use government as a means of making money by licking the ass of powerful lobbies. this will not completely eliminate the problem (there will still be people willing to work for lobbies for a couple mil) but will lessen the importance of wealth on politics greatly (along with not allowing donations to presidential candidates or organizations promoting them in anyway).
Keep the price low for medic and increase the tax on sugar.
Not all diabetes is caused by excess sugar intake
diabetes
I did not know that. But I still think it is a good idea.
Diabetes is simply not caused by excess sugar intake. People still keep parroting this misinformation and probably always will.
Being overweight (BMI 25 to 30) doubles your chances of becoming a Type II diabetic. Being obese (BMI 30+) basically guarantees you’ll become a Type II diabetic. Excess sugar intake will make you overweight or obese, so it’s hardly misinformation parroting to say that excess sugar intake causes diabetes, even though a) there are other ways to become overweight besides excess sugar intake, b) it’s possible to get Type II diabetes without being overweight, and c) not all diabetics are Type II.
People with high metabolism and high sugar intake are highly unlikely to develops diabetes. High sugar intake is not a cause of diabetes. Might as well say hamburgers or not walking causes diabetes as those are exactly as accurate as saying sugar causes it.
Sure, that’s fine. Calories in vs calories out.
In the case of type 2 diabetics, obesity is usually a large factor (no pun intended). If you’re able to consume large quantities of sugar and stay in shape (BMI below 25), then you’re probably fine.
Type 2 diabetes is, by definition, insufficient insulin to push blood sugars into the cells of the body. That’s very sugar-related. More body, and more sugars means more insulin is needed. Once it exceeds the ability of the pancreas, you have type 2 diabetes, regardless of BMI or obesity.
What I’m saying is, you don’t need to be obese to have diabetes, even type 2 diabetes.
The existence of type 1 diabetes, however, kind of makes all of this commentary, fairly moot. T1D persons simply cannot live without insulin. So logically, what society is saying by not capping insulin costs is that the lives of type 1 diabetics and the well-being of type 2 diabetics, is less important than money.
And that’s what all this discourse boils down to.
We’ve got a High-Fructose Corn Syrup fan here
Gotta preserve those family values of inter-generational diabetes and related diseases
It builds character!
Anyone saying both sides is a clown.
It’s an older story but it’s important to bring up though because there’s a lot of “Do nothing democrat” BS that’s coming up repeatedly.
Ok but who are those 11 that voted correctly?
Probably some of ones with diabetes or a family member who has diabetes since Republicans only care about things that affect them personally.
Apparently it ended up being 12. You can look them up here:
- Don Bacon, Nebraska
- Brian Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
- Andy Harris, Maryland
- Jaime Herrula Beutler, Washington
- Richard Hudson, North Carolina
- John Kakto, New York
- Nicole Malliotakis, New York
- Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
- Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa
- Bill Posey, Florida
- Christopher H. Smith, New Jersey
- Frederick Stephen Upton, Michigan
