Sometimes, even though dining at Mirazur and Noma is by far the preferred experiences, one just gets a hankerin' for a Big Mac.

Hard to believe they'll soon be yummy Big Mac's

Ahh, so you were lying. You did have time.

From your response it's clear you don't know much about medicine.

"If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital. "

No. You do get to call yourself a hospital. Most hospitals don't offer all medical services. Even major hospitals. You don't get to choose what is and isn't a hospital.

"There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling"."

Sort of. It's a chicken and egg situation that has an order to it.

Most private hospitals are unwilling to provide non-profit services and are therefore not equipped to provide them. You won't find hospitals with the skills (i.e. doctors and nurses able to perform the procedure) and equipment (which is almost always purpose specific in medicine) and not the willingness to do the procedure. Catholic hospitals won't have either of those necessary requirements for most of the disputed procedures.

"And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc."

No, mine was an appropriate analogy in regards to asking for a service or product that a company does not provide. In this case a Big Mac at KFC.

'"Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.'

I can't say it's bullshit, but it is irrelevant.

'Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?'

You're wrong. It is only an inconvenience. It sucks to be transferred to a different hospital but in general it has no adverse medical outcome on the patient. If the patient is critical the hospital will do what they can (which will be limited because they don't have the skills or equipment for that service) before transferring the patient. Just like one thousand and one other non-life-threatening and life-threatening procedures that most hospitals don't treat. Leaving the patient in place at that hospital carries a higher adverse risk than transferring them to an appropriate facility.

'And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.'

Not a strawman. You've given one example in a tabloid paper of a single woman who died from septacaemia, a week after a procedure. Unless you can show a conclusive coroner's report showing that the delay in removing the foetus (i.e. waiting until it was dead) was the cause, and not the 1000% more likely cause of infection during or after the surgery, then you don't even have that one example. And this sort of sepsis is just as likely from doing the same procedure with a live foetus. The procedure is pretty much the same. And even with one example, that's not statistically relevant. Do you have a study published in a reputable medical journal?

"The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot."

These hospitals have a mission statement based on their beliefs but they are practicing state of the art medicine. Based on their beliefs they don't offer all services , but this is no different than any other small hospital who limits their services. There are no statistically relevant adverse medical outcomes for anyone from this situation.

"But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")"

You're confusing you're belief of "shouldn't" with "doesn't". They can and should limit their services to what they want to offer as a hospital. The same as every public hospital does. And no, if the procedure is legal they do not have to provide it. This is true for public and private hospitals.

You seem to be sorely missing this basic vital understanding that all hospitals are limited in capacity and don't offer all services. If you go to the largest hospital near me (one of two major hospitals near me) and need emergency obstetrics, you will be shipped off to the other major hospital. That's how it works. If you go to one of many dozens of smaller private hospitals and ask for a,b, or c and they only offer x, y or z, then you're going to end up going to a different hospital.

The catholic hospital is practicing conscientious objection and passively practicing this (yes, passively, they're happy for you to go elsewhere). You want to force (that's the best word) all medical personal to bend to your will and don't accept worldviews that don't coincide with yours. Bigotry at it's finest.

'("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")'
FFS: Evidence of hospitals doing this please. Not an individual doctor. Hospitals.

'As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".'

You're saying "if you don't like my personal rules, then go find a different industry". Democracies a bitch when you don't get what you want. You're going to have to live with the fact that your way is just your opinion and nothing else.

You're getting pretty boring pretty quickly. I doubt I'll bother anymore with you, it's readily apparent that you're not going to learn any time soon.

FFS, I'm not trying to make an argument. As for watching the video, that wasn't a waste of my time, it was entertaining and informative unlike the article which was desperately trying to excuse an awful situation.

But fine, you want an argument? Let's do this.

"If one doesn't want the very small set of restrictions that go with some (not all) religiously affiliated hospitals, don't go there. One does have a choice."

You have that backwards. If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital.

How would you feel if there was a Jehovahs Witness hospital that didn't do blood transfusions? Or a Christian Science hospital that refused to do medical treatment?
Both of those are real world examples where people died.

There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling". In a local area, there might be several smaller medical facilities, but finding two major care centres across the road from each other is pretty rare.

And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc.

As for the article:

"First, Bee ignores the fact that Catholic teaching on human life and reproduction is a fundamental, longstanding tradition of the Church, passed down from one generation to the next for centuries. "

Irrelevant. Next...

"But Catholic priests, bishops, and cardinals don’t give “reproductive advice”; they articulate the truth about human life and reproductive ethics in accord with Catholic teaching."

Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.

"the claim that women will be without care if they are refused service at a Catholic hospital."
Er, even the article acknowledges that Bee understands this point and makes the point that in an emergency situation, you go to the nearest available centre that can treat you.

"This is another straw man. In most cases, when women want a particular reproductive service, they have ample time to locate and attend a non-Catholic hospital. "

Yes, and in most cases, people do. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE FUCKING TALKING ABOUT.

"Even in the few emergency situations — which Bee presents as if they are the vast majority of cases"

No, she really doesn't.

"Though it sometimes might be inconvenient for a woman to travel to a non-Catholic hospital, the inconvenience surely does not outweigh the importance of conscience rights, which demand that Catholic hospitals not be forced to provide procedures that Catholicism deems morally wrong."

Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?

"In reality, a direct abortion (in which a doctor intentionally kills a child) is never medically necessary to save a mother’s life. If a woman is having a miscarriage, having her child killed in an abortion will do nothing to improve her health or save her life."

And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.

The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot.

But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")

As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".

I married into an Asian family that run restaurants, are professional bakers, and wow, even the bad cooks can kick my ass in the kitchen. No one I've spoken to in her family has a problem with Panda Express style food ON OCCASION because the horse it's really high but it's so much more comfortable just enjoying food. Go eat a goddamn big mac, but before you take your first bite SAY OUT LOUD, "I'm just a dumb slut living on the planet earth. Eat fuck and shit motherfucker" and then eat the frelling burger. Frack you. It's good, bitch. Just stop lying to yourself, you food slut

And drink a Pabst. Hey. Asshole! Yeah YOU. Not me i know me bad but u worse so you, this I say: Go buy a 6 pack of non-lite budweiser, smoke some shitty weed out of an apple, and proclaim to the sky and no one in particular -- FUCK MY TRADITIONS AND FUCK MY AFFILIATIONS -- I will eat anything that my SLUT taste buds will enjoy. My brain may proclaim "But people and science says" -- SCIENCE and PEOPLE aren't your taste buds, bud(ette). Stop thinking what can create competition and power, the red queen effect its EVERYWHERE. When you think you're making conscious choices about your perception of food matter reacting with your taste buds, in reality your brain is making complex judgements on the world around it, cut throat and always seeking gain. You will seem to just "know" your tastes. Liar. You're competing with your surroundings. Points within time and space colliding and reacting. You don't know the difference between a tastey butt hole and the centerfold back cover of a Mad magazine.

Ok, but, don't always not think. Sometimes you must think and get vaccines and stuff. Do that. Eat orange chicken. Smoke weed. Drink a steel reserve once a month. Then go to a grocery store, buy a bunch of meat and vegetables, and FUCKING COOK BITCH. That's really the only lesson.

Is English a second language, or are you just being disingenuous? Me thinks the latter. No...publicly owned roads are NOT toll roads because they are paid for with taxes. Taxes and tolls are different things, that's why they are spelled and pronounced differently. I live on a private road..so I'm certain they must exist.
It is absolutely NOT illegal to create a private toll road on private property with private funds. That's just asinine. It is nearly impossible to build one without using public services, such as the public roads and ports needed to deliver materials, but certainly not illegal.

It's leaching off me if you don't pay your fair share, and you have made it clear you don't think you should have to pay any, so I must assume you do all you can to minimize what you put into the pot...so yes, I would make an educated guess that you are leaching off me. I don't even itemize deductions, because I feel grateful to live in what I feel is a great country, and feel it's unpatriotic to try to shirk my duty to pay for my portion of government, even if I disagree with how they spend most of it. That's the cost of living in a 'representative democracy'.

As to mail, yes, you may not use mail boxes set up for/by the USPS for a private mail service...so you can't do 'first class mail'. You can, however, deliver letters for a fee to your OWN style of 'letter box', so your claim they have a 'monopoly' is ridiculous, they would be so happy to have it taken over, it's a big money loser and a huge pain in the ass to keep going. I'm personally grateful mail hasn't yet been privatized, as I know full well the service would suffer badly to make it profitable, for me especially since I live in the boonies and would never be profitable as a customer. To deliver my letters by FedEx would cost 10 times what USPS charges. (by the way, FedEx and UPS are proof that you already CAN deliver 'mail' privately, just not into a USPS 'mail box')
EDIT: What you said was akin to me saying 'Instead of just complaining about the quality of available burgers, you could open your own hamburger stand' and you answering 'I can't...it's illegal for me to sell "Big Mac's" because...government'.

AND, I would add, you have still never addressed my original point, that if business could/would 'self regulate', they would be doing so now. Self regulation is total fantasy, it simply doesn't happen. How exactly, I wonder, are 'the people' supposed to gain the knowledge about a companie's violations of public trust and health if there's no regulatory agency inspecting and reporting on what the company is actually doing, and they can do all their evil in secret?

My guess would be he stuck to zero calorie drinks and avoided fries.

Had a quick on their nutritional website, a Big Mac is 520 calories, which is not great but not absurd. The issue is, you add a large fries (500) and coke (280) to that and you've added exactly 150% more calories on top.

All up being 1300 calories or about 2/3rds of your daily intake in one meal. Provided you avoided the sides though, it wouldn't be too hard to stick within the limits.

The issue is that MCD makes the minimum mandated attempt to educate customers. Australia legislates that food energy levels be published in a prominent fashion alongside the rough recommended daily energy intake of 8700kJ. They usually publish most of these on the side in small font. Having been over in France recently they didn't have them, I'm sure that's the case in most countries.

The larger issue with MCD and other fast food is the use of trans-fats and excessive sodium.

Trans-fats act as an insanely effective preservatives that keeps their produce looking like it'd been cryogenically frozen even years on. They're also have a reputation for clogging arteries causing heart attacks, strokes and the like.

Sodium which boosts blood pressure when ingested is a flavour enhancer which is probably why it's used in excessive amounts (e.g. a Big Mac has 40% of recommended daily Sodium). Even if this guy kept within calorie limits he would have easily been breaching recommended Sodium levels and in the long term would be elevating his risk of high blood pressure, stroke or various kidney diseases.

Let's get a bit more realistic here, shall we?

I like John. He's smart. But he missed the point on government assistance. The guy meant that the wage will be increased through legislation and not merit. I'm sure he also didn't mean that taxpayers are directly on the hook, even though indirectly they will be.

It's easy to narrow this conversation down to Burger King, McDonald's, and the like because they are large corporate entities which pay some employees minimum wage.

But guess what? Tons of other places in the United States pay their employees minimum wage too. The difference is that they are most certainly not large corporate entities and therefore can't mitigate the impact of a rising wage through the diversity of their products or the markets in which they serve. They are Joey's Pizza and Bertha's Plumbing. There is no way in hell they'll be able to pay a federal minimum wage of 15$.

You're right. 15$ an hour won't put a dent on the cost of a Big Mac, but when your septic tank gets destroyed from choking down all those burgers, you'll be sure to get some sticker shock.

15 an hour is quite feasible. The only consequence it has is on the level of surplus value harvested by capitalists.

The working day is divided into two segments. The part that the person works to equate the cost of reproducing themselves. The other part is the portion not paid for by the capitalist: surplus labor, or, surplus value. This is the source of profit.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 increases variable capital (wages). The other part of capital is constant capital: machines, tech, etc.

The rise in variable capital will increase the necessary labor of the working day, taking away the portion that goes to surplus value.

The working class has fought and won a raise in wages throughout history, quite often. It is necessary politically when the wages (price for labor-power) does not equal the actual value of labor power (cost to reproduce oneself).

Capitalists can easily make do here. They will just devise new ways of getting more surplus value. The can raise the minimum wage no problem, they will just fire workers and buy more machines to replace the fired workers, and then make the workers that are left work really hard (condensation of labor).

And no, this wont make a big mac cost more money.

This fight is necessary, just and progressive for humanity. We shouldn't ask why workers at McDonalds should or shouldn't get $15 an hour. We should ask why we all can't have that much. Fuck, lets go farther. Down with the 1% and capitalism. Lets go for more then $15 an hour. Lets storm heaven itself!

Sigh, I unfortunately fall on the side of "Really, they want 15/hour?"

It's a brain dead job, specifically designed for brain-dead teenagers to come in and work their 5 hours a day, 3 times a week. Yes, a lot of people unfortunately work at fast food joints, but 15 bucks an hour? I used to work in a factory that recycles car parts and plastics, hard labour, and I only made 3 dollars more than some kid would be making flipping burgers. There's warehouses that offer 13.75/hour, again, hard physical labour.

I personally don't think a job that requires you to put fries in a basket and hit a single button that will then drop that basket for you, and raise it up for you once the fries are cooked, OR microwave / heat up a burger patty and assemble a burger truly requires enough time or effort to warrant giving them 15/hour.

Yes, again, I understand some people have fallen upon hard times and need enough money to survive, I feel for them, I've been in that situation. But the way to fix that isn't just to demand more money for what you're getting, it's to enrich yourself to the point where you can do something that DOES warrant a decent wage.

Honestly, the argument that "Oh, McDonalds has record profits, they should be able to pay their workers more" to me, straight out means i'm paying too much money for a damn big mac.

The minimum wage in Ontario is 10.25/hour (9-something for students)
and that, to me, seems like a perfectly reasonable amount.

Cool idea and execution for a video -- nice sift!

I'm an American living in Thailand for the past 6 years. Thai food is cheap and good, but stuff like Western fast food (for example the Big Mac in the video) is probably near double US prices here. But as long as you're happy with Thai food, you can get a plate of average-to-good quality Thai fare for roughly 60 cents (more in Bangkok). Beats the crap out of stuff like the "dollar menu" back home.

One more thing -- I wonder if the price of rice was comparing the same variety of rice in each country, or just comparing the most commonly consumed variety for each location. Thailand exports a lot of sticky rice ("glutinous rice", but not from gluten) to Japan -- they love it there and pay a large premium for it over "normal" rice varieties. Maybe that accounts for the video noting that rice is expensive in Japan?

*promote the crazy burger thing - the song/chant is the jingle for the ingredients of the Big Mac. Used to figure prominently in their marketing. Clearly this demographic knows it too well!

Don't forget:

Royale with Cheese = Big Mac