![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/fccbdfb0-9c67-456d-b9e5-4c3c39375331.png)
What percentage were construction workers?
What percentage were construction workers?
??? Both options are the same thing tho?
Welcome to old.
Bing chat will do it
Are the libs not going for pharmacare?
We just need to dig a deep enough hole in a subduction zone so it eventually turns into lava
misis + sippi
mister + sippi
Taking part in a genocide does taint it a tad
Immigration helps with healthcare though. We get working, tax paying adults, and skip the expensive child phase.
Messing with immigration numbers would throw off other systems too. Makes way more sense to just directly fix the problem of not enough housing. It’s not like cutting immigration would do anything to reverse the problem anyway. Housing looks like it’s just an excuse to blame immigrants, because somehow the solution always seems to be blaming immigrants.
I though pharmacare was one of those things that paid for itself with the single point of negotiation and reduced need for emergency care? I don’t really remember the numbers…
It’s whoever the right wing chooses as the next target, right?
Only way out for me I see in the long term is to live with like tons of roommates and practice my ultra-dense room arrangement skills.
I think the core problem is that any move the government makes to reduce housing costs will piss off everyone whose primary investment is their house.
Correct solution if not for that would be for government to directly build a fuckton of housing.
Incorrect solution would be to reduce immigration. Immigration is good for other reasons. Cutting it off would weaken the country.
I want to know more
I like the sound of that. Pharmacare seems like an obviously good policy.
Are there any decent arguments against it?
If they’re not stealing for money, supporting the black market, dying of overdoses, or spreading disease by sharing needles, and have consistent dosages and proximity to support programs, why quit?
Probably the massive social stigma and loss of positive effects due to built tolerance.
It would make the problem way less urgent at any rate.
Giving addicts free drugs is a subset of harm reduction. Honestly, at this point in the discussion, we need numbers to be productive.
Common sense is extremely subjective.
Is it really more effective to not help addicts than to use harm reduction methods?
“Facts over feels” and all that.
Mandatory care has the same incentive against self reporting though?
Do we have any data on relapse rates from this vs non-mandatory methods? My guess would be high recidivism if the person is released back into the exact same circumstances in which they started using in the first place.
Not much of a right then, is it?