Try the political quiz

Candidates  ›  Policies  ›  Healthcare

2024 European Parliamentary

European Free Alliance

Regionalist European political partiy.

Overview Policies Discuss Ratings Themes Ideology

European Free Alliance’s policy on mental health

These issues below are sorted in descending order based on how important the average Spanish [people] voter ranked them on the quiz.

Filters

Topics

Should the government increase funding for mental health research and treatment?

  ChatGPTYes, our mental healthcare system needs more funding to provide a higher quality of care and services

European Free Alliance’s answer is based on the following data:

ChatGPT

Very strongly agree

Yes, our mental healthcare system needs more funding to provide a higher quality of care and services

The EFA's emphasis on social justice and equitable access to services for marginalized and minority groups makes it highly probable that they would strongly agree with increasing funding specifically to improve the quality of care and services in the mental healthcare system. This aligns with their broader objectives of enhancing public welfare systems to better serve all segments of society. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

Yes

The European Free Alliance (EFA), being a political party that focuses on regionalism, minority rights, and advocating for the rights of stateless nations, is likely to support increased funding for mental health research and treatment. This is because such policies align with their broader goals of social justice, inclusivity, and improving the welfare of all citizens, especially those in marginalized communities. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

Yes, but only increase funding for personalized care instead of subsidizing pharmaceutical companies

While the EFA would likely support the idea of increasing funding for personalized care in mental health, reflecting their broader commitment to tailored and inclusive public services, they might not fully agree with the exclusion of funding for pharmaceutical companies. This is because they might recognize the role of medication as one component of comprehensive mental health care, even as they advocate for a more holistic and person-centered approach. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No

Given the EFA's commitment to social welfare and public services, it is unlikely that they would oppose government funding for mental health research and treatment. Their political stance generally favors increased public investment in healthcare to ensure equitable access for all, rather than reducing government spending in these areas. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

No, incentivize private companies to address this issue instead

The EFA's political ideology, which leans towards social democracy and regional autonomy, suggests a preference for public or community-based solutions over privatization. Therefore, they would likely strongly disagree with the idea of incentivizing private companies to address mental health issues, favoring instead direct government intervention and funding. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Personal answer

This candidate has not responded to our request to answer this question yet. Help us get it faster by telling them to answer the iSideWith quiz.

Voting record

We are currently researching this candidate’s voting record on this issue. Suggest a link to their voting record on this issue.

Donor influence

We are currently researching campaign finance records for donations that would influence this candidate’s position on this issue. Suggest a link that documents their donor influence on this issue.

Public statements

We are currently researching campaign speeches and public statements from this candidate about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

Candidate’s support base

Not enough data to provide a reliable answer yet.

Party influence

We are currently researching this candidate’s political party and its stance on this issue.

Party’s support base

Not enough data to provide a reliable answer yet.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this candidate’s stance here


Popular conversations

Join in on the post popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

Mexico Slams U.S. Policies as Trump Renews Border War

President Claudia Sheinbaum suggested Tuesday that Mexico could retaliate with tariffs of its own, after U.S. President-elect Donald Trump threatened to impose 25% import duties on Mexican goods if the country doesn’t stop the flow of drugs and migrants across the border.Sheinbaum said she was willing to engage in talks on the issues, but said drugs were a U.S. problem.“One tariff would be followed by another in response, and so on until we put at risk common businesses,” Sheinbaum said, referring to U.S. automakers that have plants on both sides of the border.She said Tuesday that Mexico had done a lot to stem the flow of migrants, noting “caravans of migrants no longer reach the border.” However, Mexico’s efforts to fight drugs like the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl — which is manufactured by Mexican cartels using chemicals imported from China — have weakened in the last year.Sheinbaum said Mexico suffered from an influx of weapons smuggled in from the United States, and said the flow of drugs “is a problem of public health and consumption in your country’s society.”Sheinbaum also criticized U.S. spending on weapons, saying the money should instead be spent regionally to address the problem of migration. “If a percentage of what the United States spends on war were dedicated to peace and development, that would address the underlying causes of migration,” she said.Sheinbaum’s bristly response suggests that Trump faces a much different Mexican president than he did in his first term.Back in late 2018, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador was a charismatic, old-school politician who developed a chummy relationship with Trump. The two were eventually able to strike a bargain in which Mexico helped keep migrants away from the border — and received other countries’ deported migrants — and Trump backed down on the threats.

▲  1613 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

Netanyahu Shifts Focus to Iran After Cease-Fire with Hezbollah

Israel approved a cease-fire with Lebanon that is intended to bring a halt to more than a year of fighting with the Hezbollah militia and could help defuse a broader regional crisis that has threatened to ensnare the U.S. and other world powers.“I have some good news to report from the Middle East,” President Biden said on Tuesday, announcing a cease-fire that he said would begin at 4 a.m. local time on Wednesday.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu backed the agreement earlier in the day, saying it would let Israel focus on the threat from Iran, allow the Israeli military to rest and rearm, and isolate Hamas.“The continuation of the cease-fire will be dependent on what happens in Lebanon. We will enforce the agreement and respond forcefully to every violation,” Netanyahu said.Lebanon’s prime minister, Najib Mikati, welcomed the agreement, saying it would bring “calm and stability in Lebanon and the return of the displaced to their homes and cities.”The Lebanese cabinet is expected to meet on Wednesday to approve steps to enforce the cease-fire, including sending government security forces to areas of southern Lebanon near the border with Israel.Hezbollah has indicated openness to a deal in recent days. “What concerns us are Lebanese national measures and the protection of sovereignty,” Hassan Fadlallah, a member of Parliament affiliated with the group, told The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.The announcements came after a day of heavy bombardment of Beirut while Israeli ground forces advanced deeper into Lebanese territory. Minutes after Biden spoke, a series of explosions thundered in Beirut. Northern Israel also came under renewed rocket fire.There was no immediate public comment from Hezbollah on the announced cease-fire.If implemented, the agreement would be a diplomatic success for Biden in the twilight of his administration, after more than a year in which the White House has tried to fend off the possibility of a wider regional war. It could also change the landscape that President-elect Donald Trump will face when he takes office in January.

▲  178 replies

Active 13hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4 days4D

Kamala Harris is considering running for president again in 2028

Kamala Harris has been lying low since her defeat in the presidential race, unwinding with family and senior aides in Hawaii before heading back to the nation’s capital.But privately, the vice president has been instructing advisers and allies to keep her options open — whether for a possible 2028 presidential run, or even to run for governor in her home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, “I am staying in the fight.”She is expected to explore those and other possible paths forward with family members over the winter holiday season, according to five people in the Harris inner circle, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. Her deliberations follow an extraordinary four months in which Harris went from President Joe Biden’s running mate to the top of the ticket, reenergizing Democrats before ultimately crashing on election night.“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”Harris concedes: 'We must accept the results of this election'SharePlay VideoMost immediately, Harris and her advisers are working to define how and when she will speak out against Donald Trump and reassert her own role in the Democratic Party. Closing out her term as vice president, she’s set to preside over certifying the November election she lost to Trump, and then appear at the once-and-future president’s inauguration on Jan. 20.“There will be a desire to hear her voice, and there won’t be a vacuum for long,” a person close to Harris said.At the same time, Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, will have a long checklist to plow through before they leave the Naval Observatory for good.They have to decide whether they’ll take up permanent residence at their home in Los Angeles, or establish a base elsewhere. No matter where Harris and her family live, some around her have expressed concerns about safety, as her Secret Service protection expires six months after stepping away.

▲  1020 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

Trump Appoints Controversial Covid Critic Bhattacharya To National Institute of Health

President Trump announces the nomination of Dr Bhattacharya to Director of the National Institutes of Health.Bhattacharya has called for shifting the agency’s focus toward funding more innovative research and reducing the influence of some of its longest-serving career officials, among other ideas.Trump earlier this month selected Kennedy to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees NIH and other health agencies. Kennedy has played a central role in choosing top health-care staff and deputies for the next administration, including Marty Makary, a Johns Hopkins surgeon and writer whom Trump announced to lead the Food and Drug Administration, and Dave Weldon, an internal medicine physician and former GOP congressman whom Trump selected to run the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Bhattacharya emerged as a prominent critic of the federal government’s covid-19 response, co-writing an October 2020 open letter known as the Great Barrington Declaration that called for rolling back coronavirus-related shutdowns while keeping “focused protections” for vulnerable populations, such as older Americans. The proposal won support from Republican politicians and some Americans eager to resume daily life but was rebuked by public health experts, including then-NIH Director Francis S. Collins, as premature and dangerous as the covid-19 virus continued to spread and vaccines were not yet available.Bhattacharya has called for rolling back the power of some of the 27 institutes and centers that constitute NIH, saying that some career civil servants wrongly shaped national policies at the height of the pandemic and did not tolerate dissent. Bhattacharya and other critics have singled out Anthony S. Fauci, the infectious-disease expert who led one of NIH’s centers for 38 years and helped steer the nation’s coronavirus response before leaving the federal government in December 2022.Trump Appoints Controversial Covid Critic Bhattacharya To NIH

▲  188 replies