🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@LennyGandolphini It sounds like you are using universal coverage to mean something more specific than what you really mean.. Universal coverage implies everyone is forced, beyond their own choices, to have insurance, and typically what constitutes insurance is strictly defined or worse yet a specific insurance is forced upon them, usually by tax money...

But your anecdotes about family without coverage suggests to me you mean something else that doesnt equate, necessarily to universal coverage. Correct me if I'm wrong but what you really support is that everyone has access to coverage, should they want it (which is not universal coverage). That is, if you are too poor to afford it it should be free, if you can afford it good quality affordable coverage should be available to you.

If that is correct, then your almost fooling yourself, as you arent asking for universal coverage at all, and thus alternatives are very much an option so long as they accomplish that goal no?

@valleyforge For starters, I dont think he is those things they accuse him of. But if he was, it does make some sense to limit his contribution.

Misogynistic leaders, for example, will propose misogynistic policies. As leaders they have a lot of sway to get support than a mere contributor. So it might make sense they wouldn't want him, or at least someone with those qualities, in a leadership position, which is inevitable given his status really.

After All dont we pick the people in any community for any position based on the types of policies and ideology they support?

@LennyGandolphini It sounds to me like both universal healthcare and private healthcare sucks where your at, and I personally would agree with this as a general statement.

So why be all for tax-paid universal healthcare at all, why feel you have to choose one or the other? Why not consider or suggest alternative systems that are neither of these two but address the concerns of both?

@pthenq1 long story short you are proposing a law that forces a situation where 100% of people with a mental disorder is forced to hide it for as long as they can (on the order of decades potentially) and go without treatment. Causing 100% of people to go untreated in the hopes of catching the 0.01% of them that might kill

Worse idea ever.. if anything all youll do is make way more of them murderers because they are now all untreated and you just turned that 0.01% into a much larger number.

@pthenq1 and yet for him it never was.. decadesof hiding and he was never exposed. Only reason i found out is because he actively sought help on his own. If he knew seeking help would mean he would be considered a subhuman with limmited rights for the rest of his life he would have went on going untreated for another 20+ years...

So your proposing people hide it to keep their rights and go for many decades and **maybe** get caught eventually.. still a dumbass suggestion as Id rather see someone get treated than be forced to hide it for decades on end.

@pthenq1 and i said he hid it for 20+ years with no one ever realizing it, so clearly that is false

@pthenq1 You said they dont seek help on their own and cant hide it.. you were wrong on both counts.

@Starcake

Just the ones paying attention :)

@icedquinn @pthenq1

@pthenq1 No there was no break. He went to the psychiatrist on his own as he wasnt happy hiding it. No one knew until he came out and sought help on his own.

@pthenq1 my friend with the condition hid it for many years before being diagnosed, so thats BS

@pthenq1 Even if 95% of murders are carried out by them, 99.99% of them will never murder anyone.. nothing reasonable about it.. you create a situation where 99.9% of people who would never kill anyone now can no longer seek help without loosing fundemental rights so go untreated and have to hide their condition.. all in the hopes of stopping the 0.01% of them.

So you have now made the entire group dangerous and untreated in a naive and unethical attempt to stop 0.01% of them from crimes.

I bet if you run the statistics youll find 98% of mass shootings are done by men (I cant think of a single woman who did it).. so by that logic only women should be allowed guns... This type of thinking is dangerous, reckless, and stupid. Not to mention causes WAY more harm than it fixes.

@pthenq1

Are you literally arging that the dictionary definition is wrong and you are right?

@icedquinn

@pthenq1 i think its fine to discourage a psycotic not to buy weapons, but the second you make it illegal if they seek treatment you create a situation where psychotics are forced to hide their condition and not seek treatment... worst idea ever

@pthenq1

Definition of neurotic: "A person afflicted by neurosis"

Definition of neurosis: "Neurosis is a class of functional mental disorders involving chronic distress, but neither delusions nor hallucinations."

@icedquinn

@pthenq1

No you are using the terms absolutely wrong, a neurotic person is one with a mental disorder, but where the mental disorder does not include delusion or hallucination... Normal people who have no mental disorders are not neurotic.

@icedquinn