In a system with universal health care, I have no problem with Sikhs who choose not to wear a helmet and I would never want the government to say you are not covered. What about the person who develops drinking related illness? The smoker? The guy who weighs 350 and has weight-related diseases? The guy who twisted his ankle climbing a mountain? And on and on. I never want the health care system to ever exempt anyone because of a poor choice, or poor lifestyle choices.
There’s a line for stupidity. I just stated mine. To your examples... the smoker gets one consultation. If they refuse to quit smoking... they’re on their own. We should treat the guy who hurt his ankle exercising, but he should pay for any mid mountain medical evac (that’s as much as I want to address).
There might be a silver lining: a Sikh friend of mine laughed at me when I broke my helmet and sustained a concussion in a mountain bike accident a few years ago. He told me I was an idiot and that the next time he went down to Surrey, he was going to pick me up a sweet turban- and that if I had been wearing one instead of my helmet... I’d have been fine lol.
Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system. But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.
Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system. But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.
Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?
Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.
You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet??? Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats?
No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.
Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.
Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18. And it is rarely enforced. I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol
Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.
But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.
the only bicycle helmet law in manitoba is for minors.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system. But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.
Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?
Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.
People do dumb things every day that sends them to the hospital. I want doctors to treat people, no questions asked about them paying pretty simple. I think it's a slippery slope to decide what to get covered and what does not get covered. You're concerned about increased taxes, lol.
Then lest not cover anyone who partakes in risky behaviour...it has to be all or nothing then.
Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system. But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.
Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?
Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.
so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?
you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?
I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system. But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.
Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?
Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.
so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?
you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?
I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand.
Seems like a slippery slope. I mean, car wrecks could almost always be argued to be due to dumb decisions (maybe split second dumb decisions), so where should the line be drawn. You cannot praise universal healthcare for all and then complain about idiots using it. On that note, though, I think it is dumb for taxpayers to have to pay for ailments of others due to poor lifestyle choices, yet to what extent should the government regulate those choices? Maybe the government could tax smokers even more to compensate a bit? I don’t know. Caveats of socialism I suppose. Mans by no means am I saying we have anything near a good healthcare system...
Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system. But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.
Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?
Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.
so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?
you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?
I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand.
Seems like a slippery slope. I mean, car wrecks could almost always be argued to be due to dumb decisions (maybe split second dumb decisions), so where should the line be drawn. You cannot praise universal healthcare for all and then complain about idiots using it. On that note, though, I think it is dumb for taxpayers to have to pay for ailments of others due to poor lifestyle choices, yet to what extent should the government regulate those choices? Maybe the government could tax smokers even more to compensate a bit? I don’t know. Caveats of socialism I suppose. Mans by no means am I saying we have anything near a good healthcare system...
I agree completely.
and we actually do that already. our cigarettes are insanely expensive. close to $20 CDN per 25 cigarettes I think is what it's up to now (but I haven't smoked in over a decade, so my figure could be a bit off). and compared to the US, so is our alcohol. for 26 ounces of decent whiskey it's anywhere between $30 and $40.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system. But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.
Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?
Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.
so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?
you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?
I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand.
Seems like a slippery slope. I mean, car wrecks could almost always be argued to be due to dumb decisions (maybe split second dumb decisions), so where should the line be drawn. You cannot praise universal healthcare for all and then complain about idiots using it. On that note, though, I think it is dumb for taxpayers to have to pay for ailments of others due to poor lifestyle choices, yet to what extent should the government regulate those choices? Maybe the government could tax smokers even more to compensate a bit? I don’t know. Caveats of socialism I suppose. Mans by no means am I saying we have anything near a good healthcare system...
I agree completely.
and we actually do that already. our cigarettes are insanely expensive. close to $20 CDN per 25 cigarettes I think is what it's up to now (but I haven't smoked in over a decade, so my figure could be a bit off). and compared to the US, so is our alcohol. for 26 ounces of decent whiskey it's anywhere between $30 and $40.
Are those taxes specifically earmarked for healthcare? Just curious? If not, they should be! Some could also argue that it is unethical to highly tax publicly available highly addictive substances (but that is getting away from the topic at hand). But it is still an ethical argument. Is it ethical for responsible people to pay high healthcare taxes due to other people's irresponsible behavior? The US is definitely victim of this conundrum as well (as seen by our skyrocketed premiums, or at least that is a partial excuse from insurance providers)?
Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system. But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.
Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?
Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.
so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?
you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?
I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand.
Seems like a slippery slope. I mean, car wrecks could almost always be argued to be due to dumb decisions (maybe split second dumb decisions), so where should the line be drawn. You cannot praise universal healthcare for all and then complain about idiots using it. On that note, though, I think it is dumb for taxpayers to have to pay for ailments of others due to poor lifestyle choices, yet to what extent should the government regulate those choices? Maybe the government could tax smokers even more to compensate a bit? I don’t know. Caveats of socialism I suppose. Mans by no means am I saying we have anything near a good healthcare system...
I agree completely.
and we actually do that already. our cigarettes are insanely expensive. close to $20 CDN per 25 cigarettes I think is what it's up to now (but I haven't smoked in over a decade, so my figure could be a bit off). and compared to the US, so is our alcohol. for 26 ounces of decent whiskey it's anywhere between $30 and $40.
Are those taxes specifically earmarked for healthcare? Just curious? If not, they should be! Some could also argue that it is unethical to highly tax publicly available highly addictive substances (but that is getting away from the topic at hand). But it is still an ethical argument. Is it ethical for responsible people to pay high healthcare taxes due to other people's irresponsible behavior? The US is definitely victim of this conundrum as well (as seen by our skyrocketed premiums, or at least that is a partial excuse from insurance providers)?
LOL...no. The tax revenue just goes into general coffers.
Trying to set up a system where health care is not covered because someone engaged in “risky” behaviour is a slippery slope leading to a black hole, because none of us is perfect every moment. Even people that don’t smoke, don’t drink, don’t use drugs, and exercise will have some areas that aren’t conducive to perfect health, and every one of us makes split second bad decisions some days. Are those in favour of this plan and who eat red meat, for instance, agreeable to pay their own health care costs if they have a heart attack? Do you want to pay your costs if you have a moment of inattention and crash your car? What about if you’re rushing because you’re late for an event and you slip on the ice and break a bone?
Something about glass houses and stones is appropriate here.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system. But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.
Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?
Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.
so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?
you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?
I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand.
A guy climbing a mountain should not pay for his medical expenses.
I agree with the slippery slope notion. I just get tired of people being stupid and/or abusing our health care system (smokers habitually seeing attendants for smoking related issues).
Not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is one of those stupid things in my mind.
Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system. But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.
Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?
Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.
so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?
you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?
I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand.
A guy climbing a mountain should not pay for his medical expenses.
I agree with the slippery slope notion. I just get tired of people being stupid and/or abusing our health care system (smokers habitually seeing attendants for smoking related issues).
Not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is one of those stupid things in my mind.
No system is perfect. Another thought (hypothetical for only for argument sake), if a non-smoker and heavy smoker went into a hospital at the exact same time with signs of an impending fatal heart attack and there was only enough staff/time to save one...who should get saved?
You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet??? Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats?
No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.
Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.
Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18. And it is rarely enforced. I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol
Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.
But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.
Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?
That is obviously a really dumb question.
It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something and/or gets sick. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever additional medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases, even though that difference can't even be fairly measured. Smoking and riding without a helmet aren't comparable in any way whatsoever. We already have a helmet law in Canada though, in order to prevent serious injury and death, and nobody should be exempt from laws, ever.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
In a system with universal health care, I have no problem with Sikhs who choose not to wear a helmet and I would never want the government to say you are not covered. What about the person who develops drinking related illness? The smoker? The guy who weighs 350 and has weight-related diseases? The guy who twisted his ankle climbing a mountain? And on and on. I never want the health care system to ever exempt anyone because of a poor choice, or poor lifestyle choices.
Absolutely not. It's a ridiculous argument that makes no sense.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system. But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.
Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?
Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.
so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?
you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?
I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand.
A guy climbing a mountain should not pay for his medical expenses.
I agree with the slippery slope notion. I just get tired of people being stupid and/or abusing our health care system (smokers habitually seeing attendants for smoking related issues).
Not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is one of those stupid things in my mind.
ok, you specifically mentioned a guy should have to pay for his "mid mountain evac", which is what I thought you meant. I guess I misunderstood.
I agree with you. Unfortunately we can't pick and choose who is covered.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet??? Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats?
No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.
Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.
Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18. And it is rarely enforced. I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol
Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.
But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.
Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?
That is obviously a really dumb question.
It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever addition medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases. Obviously that is not at all the case with motorcycle riders, and there is no comparison at all.
We all know you think everyone but you asks dumb questions, so I’ll disregard that statement as it is a dumb response. We were all carrying on a civil conversation until you came in with your typical condescension, btw. I’m betting that the smokers and their smoking related illnesses raise healthcare costs ASTRONOMICALLY compared to people riding motorcycles as well, but I could be wrong. But do any of those taxes get used to lessen the healthcare tax burden of non-smokers or people that make every effort to live healthy lives?
You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet??? Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats?
No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.
Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.
Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18. And it is rarely enforced. I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol
Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.
But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.
Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?
That is obviously a really dumb question.
It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever addition medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases. Obviously that is not at all the case with motorcycle riders, and there is no comparison at all.
Well, I’m betting that the smokers and their smoking related illnesses raise healthcare costs ASTRONOMICALLY compared to people riding motorcycles as well, but I could be wrong. But do any of those taxes get used to lessen the healthcare tax burden of non-smokers or people that make every effort to live healthy lives?
Your questions are appropriate to the thread title TBH. Yes, obviously taxes are distributed as needed - when people pay taxes, those taxes are used where needed, including in the healthcare system. But in any case, everyone's illnesses cost more than motorcycle injuries do in the healthcare system, smokers and non-smokers alike. Smokers pay much, much more than their fair share in taxes to make up for any healthcare costs above and beyond what the average non-smoker might create for any number of reasons, so there is no need to discuss that point further. The point is that Canada has helmet laws for obvious reasons that I already explained, and NOBODY should ever be excluded from the law, especially not based on their religion. IMO.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system. But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.
Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?
Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.
so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?
you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?
I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand.
A guy climbing a mountain should not pay for his medical expenses.
I agree with the slippery slope notion. I just get tired of people being stupid and/or abusing our health care system (smokers habitually seeing attendants for smoking related issues).
Not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is one of those stupid things in my mind.
No system is perfect. Another thought (hypothetical for only for argument sake), if a non-smoker and heavy smoker went into a hospital at the exact same time with signs of an impending fatal heart attack and there was only enough staff/time to save one...who should get saved?
Everyone in the medical system knows that the one who they try to save is the one with the best chance of survival. Period.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet??? Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats?
No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.
Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.
Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18. And it is rarely enforced. I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol
Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.
But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.
Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?
That is obviously a really dumb question.
It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever addition medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases. Obviously that is not at all the case with motorcycle riders, and there is no comparison at all.
Well, I’m betting that the smokers and their smoking related illnesses raise healthcare costs ASTRONOMICALLY compared to people riding motorcycles as well, but I could be wrong. But do any of those taxes get used to lessen the healthcare tax burden of non-smokers or people that make every effort to live healthy lives?
Your questions are appropriate to the thread title TBH. Yes, obviously taxes are distributed as needed - when people pay taxes, those taxes are used where needed, including in the healthcare system. But in any case, everyone's illnesses cost more than motorcycle injuries do in the healthcare system, smokers and non-smokers alike. Smokers pay much, much more than their fair share in taxes to make up for any healthcare costs above and beyond what the average non-smoker might create for any number of reasons, so there is no need to discuss that point further. The point is that Canada has helmet laws for obvious reasons that I already explained, and NOBODY should ever be excluded from the law, especially not based on their religion. IMO.
“TBH”, I’m starting to think that your being is appropriate to the thread title. If you disagree with me, you are clearly in denial IMO.
You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet??? Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats?
No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.
Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.
Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18. And it is rarely enforced. I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol
Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.
But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.
Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?
That is obviously a really dumb question.
It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something and/or gets sick. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever additional medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases, even though that difference can't even be fairly measured. Smoking and riding without a helmet aren't comparable in any way whatsoever. We already have a helmet law in Canada though, in order to prevent serious injury and death, and nobody should be exempt from laws, ever.
I'm pretty sure the point of the question was actually to make a point. if the law is meant to protect us all from astronomical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in, would it not then be meant to protect us from making the obviously stupid choice to intentionally suck poison in our lungs and be nearly guaranteed a slow and gruesome death? not only that, but PAYING for that poison at the same time?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system. But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.
Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?
Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.
so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?
you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?
I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand.
A guy climbing a mountain should not pay for his medical expenses.
I agree with the slippery slope notion. I just get tired of people being stupid and/or abusing our health care system (smokers habitually seeing attendants for smoking related issues).
Not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is one of those stupid things in my mind.
No system is perfect. Another thought (hypothetical for only for argument sake), if a non-smoker and heavy smoker went into a hospital at the exact same time with signs of an impending fatal heart attack and there was only enough staff/time to save one...who should get saved?
Everyone in the medical system knows that the one who they try to save is the one with the best chance of survival. Period.
So the non-smoker. Fair enough. Sounds to me like smoking should be outlawed in a universal healthcare system.
You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet??? Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats?
No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.
Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.
Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18. And it is rarely enforced. I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol
Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.
But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.
Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?
That is obviously a really dumb question.
It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever addition medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases. Obviously that is not at all the case with motorcycle riders, and there is no comparison at all.
Well, I’m betting that the smokers and their smoking related illnesses raise healthcare costs ASTRONOMICALLY compared to people riding motorcycles as well, but I could be wrong. But do any of those taxes get used to lessen the healthcare tax burden of non-smokers or people that make every effort to live healthy lives?
Your questions are appropriate to the thread title TBH. Yes, obviously taxes are distributed as needed - when people pay taxes, those taxes are used where needed, including in the healthcare system. But in any case, everyone's illnesses cost more than motorcycle injuries do in the healthcare system, smokers and non-smokers alike. Smokers pay much, much more than their fair share in taxes to make up for any healthcare costs above and beyond what the average non-smoker might create for any number of reasons, so there is no need to discuss that point further. The point is that Canada has helmet laws for obvious reasons that I already explained, and NOBODY should ever be excluded from the law, especially not based on their religion. IMO.
I'd like to see real stats on that. I have never heard that, and I have no idea how you'd even measure it.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet??? Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats?
No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.
Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.
Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18. And it is rarely enforced. I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol
Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.
But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.
Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?
That is obviously a really dumb question.
It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something and/or gets sick. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever additional medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases, even though that difference can't even be fairly measured. Smoking and riding without a helmet aren't comparable in any way whatsoever. We already have a helmet law in Canada though, in order to prevent serious injury and death, and nobody should be exempt from laws, ever.
I'm pretty sure the point of the question was actually to make a point. if the law is meant to protect us all from astronomical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in, would it not then be meant to protect us from making the obviously stupid choice to intentionally suck poison in our lungs and be nearly guaranteed a slow and gruesome death? not only that, but PAYING for that poison at the same time?
At least someone intelligent can understand, thanks for not being a condescending asshat!
You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet??? Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats?
No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.
Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.
Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18. And it is rarely enforced. I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol
Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.
But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.
Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?
That is obviously a really dumb question.
It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something and/or gets sick. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever additional medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases, even though that difference can't even be fairly measured. Smoking and riding without a helmet aren't comparable in any way whatsoever. We already have a helmet law in Canada though, in order to prevent serious injury and death, and nobody should be exempt from laws, ever.
I'm pretty sure the point of the question was actually to make a point. if the law is meant to protect us all from astronomical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in, would it not then be meant to protect us from making the obviously stupid choice to intentionally suck poison in our lungs and be nearly guaranteed a slow and gruesome death? not only that, but PAYING for that poison at the same time?
I know what the point of the question was. The answer is that these things are not at all comparable for the reasons I already stated. And FWIW, it is not nearly guaranteed at all. Only 50% of smokers die from smoking-related diseases. And like I already said, we all die, and most of us will die a slow and fairly gruesome death - all of which cost a lot in the healthcare system - whether we smoke or not. But smokers do pay a great deal more in taxes than non-smokers do to pay for whatever additional costs they may or may not create due to their smoking. It all works out. As I said.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
There might be a silver lining: a Sikh friend of mine laughed at me when I broke my helmet and sustained a concussion in a mountain bike accident a few years ago. He told me I was an idiot and that the next time he went down to Surrey, he was going to pick me up a sweet turban- and that if I had been wearing one instead of my helmet... I’d have been fine lol.
They're on their own meaning- they pay.
Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.
-EV 8/14/93
Then lest not cover anyone who partakes in risky behaviour...it has to be all or nothing then.
you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?
I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand.
-EV 8/14/93
On that note, though, I think it is dumb for taxpayers to have to pay for ailments of others due to poor lifestyle choices, yet to what extent should the government regulate those choices? Maybe the government could tax smokers even more to compensate a bit? I don’t know. Caveats of socialism I suppose.
Mans by no means am I saying we have anything near a good healthcare system...
and we actually do that already. our cigarettes are insanely expensive. close to $20 CDN per 25 cigarettes I think is what it's up to now (but I haven't smoked in over a decade, so my figure could be a bit off). and compared to the US, so is our alcohol. for 26 ounces of decent whiskey it's anywhere between $30 and $40.
-EV 8/14/93
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/naloxone-1.5060823
After the first OD, she should have got a lecture...no more help for you.
If not, they should be! Some could also argue that it is unethical to highly tax publicly available highly addictive substances (but that is getting away from the topic at hand). But it is still an ethical argument. Is it ethical for responsible people to pay high healthcare taxes due to other people's irresponsible behavior? The US is definitely victim of this conundrum as well (as seen by our skyrocketed premiums, or at least that is a partial excuse from insurance providers)?
Something about glass houses and stones is appropriate here.
I agree with the slippery slope notion. I just get tired of people being stupid and/or abusing our health care system (smokers habitually seeing attendants for smoking related issues).
Not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is one of those stupid things in my mind.
I agree with you. Unfortunately we can't pick and choose who is covered.
-EV 8/14/93
I’m betting that the smokers and their smoking related illnesses raise healthcare costs ASTRONOMICALLY compared to people riding motorcycles as well, but I could be wrong. But do any of those taxes get used to lessen the healthcare tax burden of non-smokers or people that make every effort to live healthy lives?
I'm pretty sure the point of the question was actually to make a point. if the law is meant to protect us all from astronomical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in, would it not then be meant to protect us from making the obviously stupid choice to intentionally suck poison in our lungs and be nearly guaranteed a slow and gruesome death? not only that, but PAYING for that poison at the same time?
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93