In the US, yes. In other countries (also Alaska and Maine somewhat), the voting system (ranked choice voting, proportional representation, etc) allows for many smaller parties to form. Because no one ends up with 50+% of the vote, these groups have to come together to get things done. With first past the post (which is winner take all, which is heinously stupid), small parties cannot meaningfully form because they cannot possibly get enough votes to get into office.
Unless you get the same size voting base as Republicans, it still leads to a corpse.
Different word, same effect
First past the post ensures that any party that tries to splinter off dooms both themselves and the party from which they splintered.
What needs to happen is the democrats need to get tea partied.
Can we get a fast painful decline? Minimize how much harm he does to… everyone?
No mention of the judge’s decision that the firings were likely illegal? That’s some shit journalism.
Yeah, Biden could have done differently.
You know what would be better? If ~23% of the populous weren’t hateful ignorant cultists intent on installing christofascism to their own obvious detriment. To hell with bitching about what democrats do wrong (most things if we’re being honest). The blame lies with every republican that voted for mango Mussolini and we shouldn’t let them forget it.
As a gay man, there’s 0 hope of a gay man winning in America. Full stop.
Why bother? Not like he hears anything with his head somehow up both Putin and Musk’s asses. Or would care if he did.
Fallacy of relative privation.
Arguable. Your argument appears to assume that bad doctors (for lack of a faster term) are the dominant problem and my assertion is a reminder that there are many other, more likely candidates. Apologies if I put an assumption in your mouth.
The current medical framework gives incentive to providing an easy, quick, cheap fix to what is often a complex problem.
I feel like the sins of capitalism are tainting the idea of a standard doctor visit. I would hazard that most doctors just want to help their patients, but that’s rather philosophical and more or less unanswerable.
I think RFKs solution is neither clear nor doable. I don’t think it even addresses the main cause of the problem.
Fair enough, I misunderstood your stance. I personally think RFK doesn’t deserve any substantial defense, hence me getting argumentative. He’s an unqualified rich asshole in a position he shouldn’t be near and I was apparently in a “shout them down” kind of mood.
We have microplastics in our brains, pfas in our water, the lingering effects of lead gasoline working its way out, increased ability and willingness to diagnose mental disorders (contrast with the old “stick em in attic” approach), economic badnesses of assorted kind every few years and a cohort of society shaming individuals for needing help. Even if bad doctors were a significant cause, they at minimum aren’t alone.
There’s no shortage of internal and external, mental and physical potential causes that are worth addressing before a conspiracy/incompetence of medical professionals is getting to my radar. It’s way easier to blame individuals than realize the problem is way bigger than that. It’s a comforting lie because it lets you pretend that the solution is clear and doable, when reality is that it’s ambiguous on a good day and may not be possible to fix in our lifetimes.
Or ye olde “useful idiot”. Honestly more rhetorical to draw attention to the absurdity of relying on RFK Jr for health advice.
Why is RFK Jr a reliable source for any of this? He’s hardly a reliable medical source. Dude promotes vaccine lies. He’s a lawyer by trade. He has no special medical knowledge or training. Why is he in charge of any of this in the first place?
Data guy here. You’re kinda running into the same rationale used by fascists, I mean republicans, to cut welfare. That being: there exists some number of people that game the system, so lets put rules in place to fight them. Sounds good right?
The problem is this: what’s the actual added value of these new rules? For this example, what’s the ratio of badly prescribed medicines to correctly prescribed ones? How many people that need the medication have to be denied it to validate catching one bad actor? Is it better to have a few bad actors to make sure everyone gets help, or is it more important to be punitive and make sure that only the right people get the resource?
Well, there’s a rational way to answer that. How scarce is the resource? If a solid gold bar was what was required to treat a condition, than yeah you’re gonna need to make sure no one is wasting it. But if the treatment is common as dirt, why are we getting in the way?
What’s the cost of the system as-is? People take medications they don’t need and may experience side effects of this medicine. Given that wellbutrin is hardly a party drug, it’s not as if people are seeking this out recreationally. They want to feel better. And if it isn’t doing anything, or is making them feel worse, than the discussion with one’s doctor should end up with “let’s try something else” (YMMV, doctors are sometimes bad, patients are sometimes bad, I’m talking how a typical case should go in a quasi-sensible world).
And you know what’s worse? Anyone that isn’t the patient and the doctor being involved in that conversation.
Just finally made the jump this week. Keeping the dual boot to finish my masters in a known stable environment with all the only-necessary-for-school-programs and then gleefully deleting it as part of my graduation celebration.
I would hazard that $400B qualify as ill-gotten gains regardless of legality.
Sociopathy, lack of long term planning skills, drugs (metaphorical and physical). Some combination of those I suspect.
Money