M1ch431

Universal healthcare

What major figure in Democratic party has seriously fought for this?

electoral reform

No Democrat is seriously looking into real electoral reform that doesn't benefit their party. First-past-the-post will never be changed under their leadership. This voting system allows them to shift blame to voters to the left of them (that they alienate) for voting Green/et. al. They engage in more voter suppression activities than they spend time arguing for serious electoral reform.

https://www.carolinajournal.com/nc-democrats-forced-to-pay-green-party-for-frivolous-intervention

https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-jill-stein-harris-trump-lawsuit-405e8bae8ff9becfa81a1360708d59a0

https://arizonaglobe.com/legal/democrats-sue-to-block-green-candidate/

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-democrats-sue-to-block-green-party-from-2024-ballot

https://dailyinterlake.com/news/2024/aug/27/montana-dems-sue-to-keep-green-party-off-november-ballot/

It goes on and on and on and on if you look at lawsuits and complaints against other parties or look further into the past.

If Democrats had even 1% of the fight that they have against third parties and put that towards positive change and actual solutions, they would've been able to accomplish some of the things you listed.

1/3 of people don't vote. They are disenfranchised or politically apathetic. 2/3 of people are propagandized or coerced into voting for parties that don't serve anything besides capital, greed, and their own lust for power.

We need a new system. The concept of "political parties" is harmful to human progress. We don't need people on imaginary teams playing tug of war with each other while the world burns.

What we do need is strong and principled leadership, that is not poisoned by capital or team politics, that is motivated towards improving the planet and actually working to solving critical issues instead of worrying incessantly about "cost" at every single step.

There's no need to play the blame game, but if we want a future that is not undesirable, it necessitates positive action and a willingness to identify what is blocking or stagnating us as a species.

The best thing to prepare is to not be fearful and to not panic.

I suggest that everybody protest against factory farming and participate in boycotts. Call lawmakers and regulators to take direct action against these companies and their dangerous practices (and hold them responsible).

Some people need floaties to stay afloat. Some people need a life jacket. Some people need a solid platform to dip their feet in. Some people fucking melt when they touch water. Whatever accommodation they need or whatever their situation, it's all perfectly acceptable in my book.

We can help them to thrive without breaking a sweat with our empathy, technology, and ingenuity.

Social skills is another way of saying the abilities required to function in a society. You might as well ask why do you need to learn to swim to get in the pool.

Even if one is uninhibited socially, it's unrealistic to expect them to be able to function how society often dictates or requires.

Last I checked, this world is pretty cruel, especially to those who are vulnerable.

Why do you need to be forced by society to develop social skills? Why isn't putting your best forward enough? For various real reasons, some people just aren't able to meet the standard forced upon them.

Trauma plays a big role in some that have trouble communicating. Instead of blaming people for being "raised by a screen", practice kindness and compassion. Do your part to make this world more inclusive, accessible, and less traumatizing for all individuals, or don't - up to you.

If they are actively violent and have committed a crime, hold them until their (expedited) court date (while providing them the option to explore support/therapy and/or access to spiritual counselors), record examinations by psychiatrists/perform them with outside/impartial observation, give the accused legal representation, and let publicly observable courts decide their fate. The option of a jury, witness/family/etc. testimony, and second opinions is imperative to their human rights.

If they have committed no crime (homelessness or being unable to provide for your needs are not crimes), are not violent, and are not a direct threat to themselves or others (and there is no concrete evidence that they will be) - there's nothing you should be able to do to violate their will.

In the latter situation, the best you can do is try to earn their trust and ensure they are provided an environment where they feel safe - providing them with every social support and alternative that they should be entitled to explore for their betterment.

It still exists. We may not lobotomize patients or put them in insulin comas, but forced ECT is still on the table. Even if the practice has improved with technological advancements, it can still be misapplied.

Though it was almost a decade ago (and in Austrailia) this story stuck out to me as being an example of everything that can go wrong in psychiatry: https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/05/psychiatry_garth_daniels/

It's fucking tragic.

Contesting forced treatment orders, such as forced ECT, is an up-hill battle. Even if the practice is more humane nowadays, it still results in damage if improperly prescribed in those deemed treatment-resistant.

I am speaking up for the people who are not served by the system and are effectively silenced. Psychiatrists are generally not legally responsible for iatrogenic illness/harm - proving damage is near to impossible, even in cases of clear malpractice and neglect.

I implore readers to look at https://www.madinamerica.com/ and consider reading Robert Whitaker's books. He is not a psychiatrist, but there are plenty of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who write or indirectly contribute to that website. I consider him qualified, but please don't treat his voice as an authority and please use discernment when reading his works or reading anecdotes from that website. It takes a strong heart and stomach to be able to read some of the stories. If accurate and true, there are many crimes against humanity documented on that website.

There are many success stories to psychiatry. I don't want to discount the stability and healing some individuals receive from proper intervention. Please don't let what I write stop you from seeking out care if you are in need. There ARE good facilities that practice a leading standard of care - that do their best to not violate your will and treat you as a human.

Find a way of treating them and helping them to adjust to society without the use of coercion or a violation of their rights. That means giving them real legal representation, giving them access to courts that are open to public observation (mental health courts are NOT sufficient), giving them access to second opinions, and exhausting social supports (e.g. housing them in a safe environment) without imprisoning them.

The bar for being declared incompetent and unable to consent to treatment (which leads to forced psychiatry) is not high enough. Even coming from a psychiatrist, it is effectively hearsay in my opinion. There is not enough due process and outside oversight.

There are real side effects to psychiatry - it's called iatrogenic illness. When somebody is in crisis, what do they prescribe? They prescribe powerful drugs, usually neuroleptics. For example, tardive dyskinesia can affect up to 20% of people who take neuroleptics. It could be permanent - look up YT videos of those afflicted. It's easy to stereotype somebody as mentally ill if they develop TD.

It could be that somebody reacts nicely to the drugs they are prescribed. But what happens when they are released and can't afford treatment or become non-compliant with treatment? It can lead to disastrous withdrawal and terrible side effects, that can result in more hospitalization or a worsening of their illness.

Knowing that, why would you take away somebody's ability to not consent to treatment? Why can't we give them access to intensive therapy, that they consent to, that properly addresses the root causes of their illness and inability to care for themselves? Why do we treat traumatized individuals by inflicting MORE trauma on them? Being kidnapped, imprisoned, and medically raped is traumatizing. Why are individuals not given the option to not consent to medication, but only consent to therapy?

I invite you to look at Soteria Houses, which is a different model of care, that successfully achieves remission in those that are experiencing first-episode psychosis/schizophrenia. If they can achieve remission with little to no psychiatric medication (and likely no life-long prescriptions) in a severe illness, without coercion or locked doors, why don't we give more people the chance to experience that? What if they have the capacity to heal in a supportive environment that doesn't strip them of their rights - an environment that respects their will and autonomy?

Involuntary psychiatry is a violent practice that strips its victims of all human rights and effectively all due process. It is an unimaginable horror that can possibly lead to coercive psychiatry or medicalized rape.

“who appear to be mentally ill and who display an inability to meet basic living needs” could be taken against their will to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.

Not being able to provide for your needs is not mental illness. An appearance of mental illness is not proof that somebody needs involuntary commitment. First responders are not equipped to diagnose mental illness - this is a stripping of rights and imprisonment.

If somebody is unable to provide for their needs, give them the ability to do so. Provide food, real housing, actual medical care, and an option for outpatient mental health care for them to recover if they are not in crisis.

I understand some people are severely mentally ill, are in crisis, and are a DANGER to themselves and others and need care ASAP, but this is just targeting impoverished individuals, who may be homeless, based on what is effectively hearsay.

We can do better than this as a society.

but the effects are very unpredictable and hasnt be reliabe

I have read many opinions from dentists, educated by the latest research, who claim otherwise.

Hydroxyapatite toothpaste has been on the market for a long time in Japan, and their statistics do not suggest that there is rampant decay in their population.

Topically applied fluoride only remineralizes the surface enamel, however, it is more resistant to acid-attack. The typical American diet and oral care habits make this a more desirable choice for those who are unwilling to commit to a consistent oral hygeine routine (and changing their diet + snacking/drinking habits).

Nano-Hydroxyapatite is similar to actual tooth structure and occludes dentinal tubules. This means it has superior remineralization capabilities, as it penetrates deeper into the tooth structure. For me, this has greatly reduced the sensitivity I have experienced (which is why I switched).

While the research has not quite caught up, it seems ideal that one ceases using fluoride toothpaste for a period of a few weeks to a few months and uses only nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste to remineralize the parts that fluoride doesn't, and if their oral care routine isn't sufficient or they are showing signs of decay (due to e.g. acid attack or improper flossing/etc.), they then should use fluoride toothpaste exclusively after that point in time (until sensitivity occurs), or a mixture of the two toothpastes (such as using a product like CariFree, which contains both), as this will make the surfaces of their teeth more resistant to acid.

Now, as for fluoride added to the water supply, it's mostly useless to your teeth. Fluoride's benefits are topical, and most people do not give it a sufficient time to work (by leaving it on the teeth for 30 minutes). The fluoridated water doesn't stay on your teeth long enough to outweigh the benefits of proper toothpaste usage/application.

Even if studies in third world countries or other countries (like Canada) suggest there is a benefit to fluoridating the water supply, an increase in dental education (especially in parents with children) would be sufficient to outweigh the supposed negatives of ceasing a largely ineffective practice. Or through the regulation of foods and drinks that are known to directly contribute to the development of caries (especially in products targeting children).

Tooth decay doesn't magically happen, there are specific causes for it. Like repeatedly applying acids to the teeth (e.g. soda) without rinsing it off with water or leaving plaque on the teeth (which produces acid) - which inevitably hardens to tartar and leads to a cascade of effects on oral and gum health, including more acid production. Dry mouth is another big reason for decay, as saliva plays a big role in remineralization.

If dental care and education were more accessible, more people would know about fluoride/nano-hydroxyapatite varnishes or would have trays made that they use overnight to remineralize their teeth. The benefits of water fluoridation are nil compared to the effectiveness of prescription (or regular) fluoride toothpastes and a proper oral care routine/diet interventions. Regular interventions from hygienists and licensed dentists - like dental cleanings/check-ups every 6 months are also imperative for oral health.

i think you need confirmed 10% n-HA for the toothpaste to repair the teeth.

According to case studies, 1-3% (of nanoXIM) is optimal for safety, sensitivity, remineralization, and whitening.