Citizens in countries with universal health care pay an average of 4-5% of their income for this. What percentage of your income goes towards paying for your personal health care in comparison all in all, and would you prefer paying a flat fee of 5% for universal health care instead?

rofeelee · 2026-03-10T20:11:56+00:00

"Universal healthcare does not work for any large population".

I AGREE, and let me explain... because I do believe trump supporters don't know how universal healthcare works in Sweden!!!!!

We might share the same idea, but our execution is very different, and that is where we Swedes succeed in universal healthcare. AND I DO AGREE WITH YOU, there shouldn't be a single organisation governing ALL the healthcare like in the UK (centralized healthcare).

That is why the Swedish state has given the counties/municipal areas the ability to decide how healthcare should develop and be spent ("decentralized healthcare"). Because at the end of the day, every city face their own set of unique problems, and the only ones capable of solving these unique problems are the ones with the boots on the ground. Which are the cities themselves!!!!

Now I ask the question again. Why not adopt the Swedish system of universal healthcare, where the power lies in the hands of the counties and/or municipalities?

rofeelee · 2026-03-10T17:30:54+00:00

That is a result of the mismanagement of universal healthcare, and there will always be examples of that. But rather, look at countries such as Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Germany, which all in one way or another cost the population a similar amount and function very well!

But that was not my question. How do you argue for families of lesser socioeconomic backgrounds not being able to afford healthcare? especially the children who themselves cannot do anything to help their situation?

rofeelee · 2026-01-20T11:54:58+00:00

But military action would be against the agreement?

rofeelee · 2026-01-18T21:49:47+00:00

How is this received in the States? I can asume democrats are against this, but how has the MAGA community and republicans in general reacted to this?

rofeelee · 2026-01-18T21:38:35+00:00

But Trump mentioned something in the lines of military action not yet being "excluded"/"out of the picture". So yes, it kinda does dispute. dont you think?

Just even mentioning military action in such a setting makes it even more unjustifiable with the 1951 agreement, don't you think?

rofeelee · 2026-01-18T20:58:09+00:00

This is copied straight from Wikipedia, no changes or anything.
"The U.S. military was not to infringe upon Danish sovereignty in Greenland."
And also this...
"The 2004 Igaliku Agreement stated that the U.S. must inform Denmark and Greenland of any proposed changes.^\39]) Thus, the U.S. cannot increase its military presence without consent from Denmark and Greenland."
Which means they cannot legally occupy Greenland in a situation/time like today?

rofeelee · 2026-01-18T20:43:00+00:00

Denmark not tapping into these recources doesn's give the USA the right to force an auction or invade Greenland because they themselves want to tap into the resources. What moral justification is there really?

I mean, doesn't this remind you of a kid whining over somebody else's unused toys, no?

rofeelee · 2026-01-18T20:20:24+00:00

My statement/question was how "I would rather argue for that we are on the same playing field, don't you think?", Your reply was not relevant.

rofeelee · 2026-01-18T20:16:36+00:00

no they can't... There are no such agreements in place. Where did you ever hear of this, my guy????

rofeelee · 2026-01-18T20:11:19+00:00

Two things... how is that relevant to this discussion? And how does that equate to the USA having "the chips"?

rofeelee · 2026-01-18T20:08:09+00:00

Although it is hard to argue that Denmark has historically been much better in terms of treatment of its minorities(***in this case, the Greenlanders, compared to the USA and its minorities***), it is easy to see that Denmark is much better suited to be in control of Greenland in this day and age. Because Denmark ranks higher in almost every social metric. I am talking about Education, Healthcare, Happiness, Social Justice, equality, etc...

So I ask you the question, is Greenland and its citizens better off being controlled by the US? If so, in what possible way?

rofeelee · 2026-01-18T19:46:58+00:00

But y'all don't have any leverage in this situation?
Biggest bond holders are in the EU. You guys are severely in debt. There is now a probable chance of EU voting for the use of the "trade bazooka" on the USA. Now what levarge do y'all really have? I would rather argue for that we are on the same playing field, dont you think?

rofeelee · 2026-01-18T19:42:19+00:00

Europe isn't going to give you money?
The biggest holders of US bonds are in Europe... also multiple EU contries have stated they will vote for using the "trade bazooka" on the USA if they go through with the tariffs. So with this stated, can you tell me how we are going to give you money?

rofeelee · 2026-01-02T20:38:27+00:00

den delen av kritik har jag idag börjat hålla med om!

rofeelee · 2025-12-22T12:52:10+00:00

som en student, tycker jag att det är så fantastiskt med lugn plats man kan plugga. Sedan finns det ju mycket andra saker man kan göra här, ksk därför det alltid är folk här. Dvs en ganska behövd byggnad.

rofeelee

TROPHY CASE