Many on the left implicitly (and explicitly) define freedom to mean must be financially subsidized or mandated by the government.
-
-
Replying to @natehanco
Only to the extent that opposite sex marriage & other healthcare is.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @natehanco
Well, as far as I am concerned.Some lefties might want same SSM to be free &abortion but not treatment of obesity-related conditions covered
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Personally, I don't think govt should pay $ for abortions outside of a hospital. But I think it should be legal. I dunno where that puts me.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @natehanco @HPluckrose
I don't think my view is unreasonable but oh do I know some people when I lived in Oakland who'd lose it if I ever told them. lol
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @natehanco
I'd disagree with it but wouldn't consider someone who wanted limitations on what healthcare covered was necessarily far-right.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @natehanco
There are arguments for a nationalised health service not covering procedures & treatments for conditions avoidable by sensible precautions
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @natehanco
Like adult onset diabetes, smoking related chronic illness, cirrhosis, HIV?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Maxtropolitan @natehanco
Yes, exactly. Could also include sports-related accidents. No-one needs to go cycling on mountains, play rugby, do gymnastics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @natehanco
Thank goodness the NHS knows better than to discourage physical exercise. Also, that list should include ballet, which destroys joints.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.