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.
unfortunately, you do that, and the black market blows up. you can't stop it. all you can do is tax it out the wazoo and hope that people wise up or simply have to quit because they can't afford it. the black market is already over the moon because of the taxation rates. making it illegal would make that much worse.
"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.
No, not necessarily the non-smoker.
If that's your conclusion, you're choosing to ignore everything I've said.
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 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.
of course they're comparable. they are both completely idiot choices that may or may not result in death.
and I'd again love to see these stats of how this "all works out".
"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?
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.
Yes, but smoking increases the medical expenses astronomically along the way, everything from treating heart disease, cancer, COPD, etc etc. It is not fair to compare the healthcare costs of smokers to non-smokers. If bike helmets should be required to save healthcare $, then should not people using the system be required not to smoke? Did I dumb it down enough for your likings?
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.
No, not necessarily the non-smoker.
If that's your conclusion, you're choosing to ignore everything I've said.
Well, the last part is going to be correct from now on. Officially ignored.
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.
Yes, but smoking increases the medical expenses astronomically along the way, everything from treating heart disease, cancer, COPD, etc etc. It is not fair to compare the healthcare costs of smokers to non-smokers. If bike helmets should be required to save healthcare $, then should not people using the system be required not to smoke? Did I dumb it down enough for your likings?
I didn't need anything dumbed down - not sure why you said that. Do you think I don't get what you're saying??
I've already addressed the rest of what you're saying here, again. I don't need to say it anymore. And why are you not talking about driving cars, drinking, eating sugar, etc etc etc etc? It's like you think only vegetarians who jog 5 miles everyday and drink 8 glasses of water and get 8 hours of sleep every night, and of course only those who also never do anything risky in their lives, EVER, should be the ones covered in a universal healthcare system, lol. And you keep ignoring the massive amount of extra taxes smokers pay here. I'm talking hundreds of thousands more, not just pennies.
Also, smoking and wearing a helmet or a seatbelt aren't the same either. And FFS, I'm going to assume that everyone here is intelligent enough to figure out why not for themselves.
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
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.
of course they're comparable. they are both completely idiot choices that may or may not result in death.
and I'd again love to see these stats of how this "all works out".
How would it not work out? Smokers pay a shitload in taxes to cover the difference, and they don't all even suffer from smoking related health issues - not even close actually. Plus everyone else also gets sick and injured in other ways for all kinds of other reasons, many of those reasons by choice as well. It's just common sense that it works out.
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 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.
of course they're comparable. they are both completely idiot choices that may or may not result in death.
and I'd again love to see these stats of how this "all works out".
How would it not work out? Smokers pay a shitload in taxes to cover the difference, and they don't all even suffer from smoking related health issues - not even close actually. Plus everyone else also gets sick and injured in other ways for all kinds of other reasons, many of those reasons by choice as well. It's just common sense that it works out.
the most recent data I could find on tobacco tax revenue vs cancer economic burden is about 1:2. obviously, not all cancers are smoking related. But 2:1 is pretty big. no way it "works out" so nicely.
national economics of revenue vs expenses, with so many variables, are never "common sense" or "just works out". sounds like a politician talking. lol
"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?
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.
Yes, but smoking increases the medical expenses astronomically along the way, everything from treating heart disease, cancer, COPD, etc etc. It is not fair to compare the healthcare costs of smokers to non-smokers. If bike helmets should be required to save healthcare $, then should not people using the system be required not to smoke? Did I dumb it down enough for your likings?
I didn't need anything dumbed down - not sure why you said that. Do you think I don't get what you're saying??
I've already addressed the rest of what you're saying here, again. I don't need to say it anymore. And why are you not talking about driving cars, drinking, eating sugar, etc etc etc etc? It's like you think only vegetarians who jog 5 miles everyday and drink 8 glasses of water and get 8 hours of sleep every night, and of course only those who also never do anything risky in their lives, EVER, should be the ones covered in a universal healthcare system, lol. And you keep ignoring the massive amount of extra taxes smokers pay here. I'm talking hundreds of thousands more, not just pennies.
Also, smoking and wearing a helmet or a seatbelt aren't the same either. And FFS, I'm going to assume that everyone here is intelligent enough to figure out why not for themselves.
yes, if we disagree with you, we must not be intelligent.
alright.
back to talking about idiots. lol
"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?
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.
of course they're comparable. they are both completely idiot choices that may or may not result in death.
and I'd again love to see these stats of how this "all works out".
How would it not work out? Smokers pay a shitload in taxes to cover the difference, and they don't all even suffer from smoking related health issues - not even close actually. Plus everyone else also gets sick and injured in other ways for all kinds of other reasons, many of those reasons by choice as well. It's just common sense that it works out.
the most recent data I could find on tobacco tax revenue vs cancer economic burden is about 1:2. obviously, not all cancers are smoking related. But 2:1 is pretty big. no way it "works out" so nicely.
national economics of revenue vs expenses, with so many variables, are never "common sense" or "just works out". sounds like a politician talking. lol
It does though.
You sound like someone who is super biased against smokers talking ... So I guess that all works out too.
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.
So the non-smoker. Fair enough. Sounds to me like smoking should be outlawed in a universal healthcare system.
No, not necessarily. Why would you assume that? There are so many factors that go into survivability of a serious medical event that this one factor may not make much difference at all. The patients would each be assessed individually.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
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.
of course they're comparable. they are both completely idiot choices that may or may not result in death.
and I'd again love to see these stats of how this "all works out".
How would it not work out? Smokers pay a shitload in taxes to cover the difference, and they don't all even suffer from smoking related health issues - not even close actually. Plus everyone else also gets sick and injured in other ways for all kinds of other reasons, many of those reasons by choice as well. It's just common sense that it works out.
the most recent data I could find on tobacco tax revenue vs cancer economic burden is about 1:2. obviously, not all cancers are smoking related. But 2:1 is pretty big. no way it "works out" so nicely.
national economics of revenue vs expenses, with so many variables, are never "common sense" or "just works out". sounds like a politician talking. lol
It does though.
You sound like someone who is super biased against smokers talking ... So I guess that all works out too.
show me yours stats. I think that's the 3rd or 4th time I've asked?
I just provided some raw data, which you ignored because it doesn't fit your position.
why would I be biased against smokers? and nothing I've said should give you the impression I am. that's obviously baseless.
Post edited by HughFreakingDillon on
"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?
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.
Yes, but smoking increases the medical expenses astronomically along the way, everything from treating heart disease, cancer, COPD, etc etc. It is not fair to compare the healthcare costs of smokers to non-smokers. If bike helmets should be required to save healthcare $, then should not people using the system be required not to smoke? Did I dumb it down enough for your likings?
I didn't need anything dumbed down - not sure why you said that. Do you think I don't get what you're saying??
I've already addressed the rest of what you're saying here, again. I don't need to say it anymore. And why are you not talking about driving cars, drinking, eating sugar, etc etc etc etc? It's like you think only vegetarians who jog 5 miles everyday and drink 8 glasses of water and get 8 hours of sleep every night, and of course only those who also never do anything risky in their lives, EVER, should be the ones covered in a universal healthcare system, lol. And you keep ignoring the massive amount of extra taxes smokers pay here. I'm talking hundreds of thousands more, not just pennies.
Also, smoking and wearing a helmet or a seatbelt aren't the same either. And FFS, I'm going to assume that everyone here is intelligent enough to figure out why not for themselves.
yes, if we disagree with you, we must not be intelligent.
alright.
back to talking about idiots. lol
Funny thing is that no one was even disagreeing with her. Everyone was in agreement that it was a slippery slope. The conversation got derailed when Mrs. condescension entered. So quick to call everyone’s comments dumb that she didn’t comprehend what everyone was saying in the first place.
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.
of course they're comparable. they are both completely idiot choices that may or may not result in death.
and I'd again love to see these stats of how this "all works out".
How would it not work out? Smokers pay a shitload in taxes to cover the difference, and they don't all even suffer from smoking related health issues - not even close actually. Plus everyone else also gets sick and injured in other ways for all kinds of other reasons, many of those reasons by choice as well. It's just common sense that it works out.
the most recent data I could find on tobacco tax revenue vs cancer economic burden is about 1:2. obviously, not all cancers are smoking related. But 2:1 is pretty big. no way it "works out" so nicely.
national economics of revenue vs expenses, with so many variables, are never "common sense" or "just works out". sounds like a politician talking. lol
It does though.
You sound like someone who is super biased against smokers talking ... So I guess that all works out too.
show me yours stats. I think that's the 3rd or 4th time I've asked?
I just provided some raw data, which you ignored because it doesn't fit your position.
why would I be biased against smokers? and nothing I've said should give you the impression I am. that's obviously baseless.
You called smokers idiotic, didn't you? And seem to treat it differently than you do other bad habits/addictions. And seem to be hinting that you think smoking should be illegal due to extra healthcare costs that you assume aren't paid for by excessive cigarette taxes, without proof. That seems biased to me, but okay.
Here. Studies have proven time and again that smokers pay their way, and that is only looking at their own costs generally, not comparing them to non-smokers' healthcare expenses as a comparison, whatever their bad habits may be. These are just a few - obviously there are more. Smokers absolutely pay their way... while nobody else does for anything they do that might cause larger healthcare costs. I doesn't even seem fair TBH.
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.
Yes, but smoking increases the medical expenses astronomically along the way, everything from treating heart disease, cancer, COPD, etc etc. It is not fair to compare the healthcare costs of smokers to non-smokers. If bike helmets should be required to save healthcare $, then should not people using the system be required not to smoke? Did I dumb it down enough for your likings?
I didn't need anything dumbed down - not sure why you said that. Do you think I don't get what you're saying??
I've already addressed the rest of what you're saying here, again. I don't need to say it anymore. And why are you not talking about driving cars, drinking, eating sugar, etc etc etc etc? It's like you think only vegetarians who jog 5 miles everyday and drink 8 glasses of water and get 8 hours of sleep every night, and of course only those who also never do anything risky in their lives, EVER, should be the ones covered in a universal healthcare system, lol. And you keep ignoring the massive amount of extra taxes smokers pay here. I'm talking hundreds of thousands more, not just pennies.
Also, smoking and wearing a helmet or a seatbelt aren't the same either. And FFS, I'm going to assume that everyone here is intelligent enough to figure out why not for themselves.
yes, if we disagree with you, we must not be intelligent.
alright.
back to talking about idiots. lol
Funny thing is that no one was even disagreeing with her. Everyone was in agreement that it was a slippery slope. The conversation got derailed when Mrs. condescension entered. So quick to call everyone’s comments dumb that she didn’t comprehend what everyone was saying in the first place.
You should talk, Mr. "did I dumb it down enough for you", JFC. Stop with this shit - you're going to get the thread shut down. Or banned.
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
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.
Yes, but smoking increases the medical expenses astronomically along the way, everything from treating heart disease, cancer, COPD, etc etc. It is not fair to compare the healthcare costs of smokers to non-smokers. If bike helmets should be required to save healthcare $, then should not people using the system be required not to smoke? Did I dumb it down enough for your likings?
I didn't need anything dumbed down - not sure why you said that. Do you think I don't get what you're saying??
I've already addressed the rest of what you're saying here, again. I don't need to say it anymore. And why are you not talking about driving cars, drinking, eating sugar, etc etc etc etc? It's like you think only vegetarians who jog 5 miles everyday and drink 8 glasses of water and get 8 hours of sleep every night, and of course only those who also never do anything risky in their lives, EVER, should be the ones covered in a universal healthcare system, lol. And you keep ignoring the massive amount of extra taxes smokers pay here. I'm talking hundreds of thousands more, not just pennies.
Also, smoking and wearing a helmet or a seatbelt aren't the same either. And FFS, I'm going to assume that everyone here is intelligent enough to figure out why not for themselves.
yes, if we disagree with you, we must not be intelligent.
alright.
back to talking about idiots. lol
I don't think you're unintelligent. Like I said, I assume you are intelligent and therefore can figure out how the issues of smoking and wearing helmets and seatbelts are different, i.e. I don't have to bother saying how. You haven't said anything to suggest otherwise. I didn't say anything about someone disagreeing with me being unintelligent, and I'd appreciate if you'd stop slandering me like that every time we don't agree. I absolutely do not think like that and am fine with disagreement, which goes in both directions.
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
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.
of course they're comparable. they are both completely idiot choices that may or may not result in death.
and I'd again love to see these stats of how this "all works out".
How would it not work out? Smokers pay a shitload in taxes to cover the difference, and they don't all even suffer from smoking related health issues - not even close actually. Plus everyone else also gets sick and injured in other ways for all kinds of other reasons, many of those reasons by choice as well. It's just common sense that it works out.
the most recent data I could find on tobacco tax revenue vs cancer economic burden is about 1:2. obviously, not all cancers are smoking related. But 2:1 is pretty big. no way it "works out" so nicely.
national economics of revenue vs expenses, with so many variables, are never "common sense" or "just works out". sounds like a politician talking. lol
It does though.
You sound like someone who is super biased against smokers talking ... So I guess that all works out too.
show me yours stats. I think that's the 3rd or 4th time I've asked?
I just provided some raw data, which you ignored because it doesn't fit your position.
why would I be biased against smokers? and nothing I've said should give you the impression I am. that's obviously baseless.
You called smokers idiotic, didn't you? And seem to treat it differently than you do other bad habits/addictions. And seem to be hinting that you think smoking should be illegal due to extra healthcare costs that you assume aren't paid for by excessive cigarette taxes, without proof. That seems biased to me, but okay.
Here. Studies have proven time and again that smokers pay their way, and that is only looking at their own costs generally, not comparing them to non-smokers' healthcare expenses as a comparison, whatever their bad habits may be. These are just a few - obviously there are more. Smokers absolutely pay their way... while nobody else does for anything they do that might cause larger healthcare costs. I doesn't even seem fair TBH.
as a former smoker, and looking at it completely objectively, yes, smoking is an idiotic habit. I knew that when i was a smoker, it's no less true now. that obviously can't be disputed. it's not bias to say any give behaviour is stupid.
how am i treating that differently than other habits or addictions? I didn't bring up the smoking thing. I'm responding to your assertion that it's not comparable, which I disagree with.
"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?
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.
Yes, but smoking increases the medical expenses astronomically along the way, everything from treating heart disease, cancer, COPD, etc etc. It is not fair to compare the healthcare costs of smokers to non-smokers. If bike helmets should be required to save healthcare $, then should not people using the system be required not to smoke? Did I dumb it down enough for your likings?
I didn't need anything dumbed down - not sure why you said that. Do you think I don't get what you're saying??
I've already addressed the rest of what you're saying here, again. I don't need to say it anymore. And why are you not talking about driving cars, drinking, eating sugar, etc etc etc etc? It's like you think only vegetarians who jog 5 miles everyday and drink 8 glasses of water and get 8 hours of sleep every night, and of course only those who also never do anything risky in their lives, EVER, should be the ones covered in a universal healthcare system, lol. And you keep ignoring the massive amount of extra taxes smokers pay here. I'm talking hundreds of thousands more, not just pennies.
Also, smoking and wearing a helmet or a seatbelt aren't the same either. And FFS, I'm going to assume that everyone here is intelligent enough to figure out why not for themselves.
yes, if we disagree with you, we must not be intelligent.
alright.
back to talking about idiots. lol
I don't think you're unintelligent. Like I said, I assume you are intelligent and therefore can figure out how the issues of smoking and wearing helmets and seatbelts are different, i.e. I don't have to bother saying how. You haven't said anything to suggest otherwise. I didn't say anything about someone disagreeing with me being unintelligent, and I'd appreciate if you'd stop slandering me like that every time we don't agree. I absolutely do not think like that and am fine with disagreement, which goes in both directions.
I have said otherwise. stating you assume someone is intelligent enough to agree with you is tantamount to stating if that person disagrees with you, they are therefore unintelligent. defending myself against personal attacks is not slander, FFS. I have proven time and again with every other poster in every other thread here that I have zero issue with disagreement. and that's all that needs to be said.
Post edited by HughFreakingDillon on
"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?
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.
of course they're comparable. they are both completely idiot choices that may or may not result in death.
and I'd again love to see these stats of how this "all works out".
How would it not work out? Smokers pay a shitload in taxes to cover the difference, and they don't all even suffer from smoking related health issues - not even close actually. Plus everyone else also gets sick and injured in other ways for all kinds of other reasons, many of those reasons by choice as well. It's just common sense that it works out.
the most recent data I could find on tobacco tax revenue vs cancer economic burden is about 1:2. obviously, not all cancers are smoking related. But 2:1 is pretty big. no way it "works out" so nicely.
national economics of revenue vs expenses, with so many variables, are never "common sense" or "just works out". sounds like a politician talking. lol
It does though.
You sound like someone who is super biased against smokers talking ... So I guess that all works out too.
show me yours stats. I think that's the 3rd or 4th time I've asked?
I just provided some raw data, which you ignored because it doesn't fit your position.
why would I be biased against smokers? and nothing I've said should give you the impression I am. that's obviously baseless.
You called smokers idiotic, didn't you? And seem to treat it differently than you do other bad habits/addictions. And seem to be hinting that you think smoking should be illegal due to extra healthcare costs that you assume aren't paid for by excessive cigarette taxes, without proof. That seems biased to me, but okay.
Here. Studies have proven time and again that smokers pay their way, and that is only looking at their own costs generally, not comparing them to non-smokers' healthcare expenses as a comparison, whatever their bad habits may be. These are just a few - obviously there are more. Smokers absolutely pay their way... while nobody else does for anything they do that might cause larger healthcare costs. I doesn't even seem fair TBH.
as a former smoker, and looking at it completely objectively, yes, smoking is an idiotic habit. I knew that when i was a smoker, it's no less true now. that obviously can't be disputed. it's not bias to say any give behaviour is stupid.
how am i treating that differently than other habits or addictions? I didn't bring up the smoking thing. I'm responding to your assertion that it's not comparable, which I disagree with.
I just said that because I've felt that you've expressed more empathy for other addicts and issues surrounding other addicts than you did here (I am also an ex-smoker).
Do you still think it's comparable, even though motorcyclists without helmets don't pay hundreds and thousands of dollars in extra taxes for the right, and even though motorcycling isn't one of the most addictive drugs in existence? I don't understand how.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I just said that because I've felt that you've expressed more empathy for other addicts and issues surrounding other addicts than you did here (I am also an ex-smoker).
Do you still think it's comparable, even though motorcyclists without helmets don't pay hundreds and thousands of dollars in extra taxes for the right, and even though motorcycling isn't one of the most addictive drugs in existence? I don't understand how.
I haven't expressed any disdain for smokers here. only that, as humans, we tend to make really fucking stupid choices. cigarettes is near tops of the list. and yes, many of my own habits are on that list too. I'm not judging anyone.
the original comparison was stupid habit vs stupid habit and what should and should not be covered by tax payers. the cost only came into it after you claimed smokers paid their fair share. that was never part of the comparison.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Just listened to Empty Garden and felt the need to deposit this f**king twit in this thread.
John Lennon? Seriously? Wtf were you thinking you dumb simple idiot? He just signed your record too. He's rotting in prison, but that's too good for this goofy bastard. It's funny how one insect can damage so much grain.
Poor lady gets trapped in an airplane bathroom for 10 minutes. She couldn’t figure out how to get out (you know... the old unlock with a slide and pull is tricky). She says she’s been traumatized. This is Canada. She’s likely going to receive a settlement.
Is that honestly true? I don’t even know if I want to check to see if it’s true, because if it is.....
How could anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the legal system not understand that a finding of not guilty does not equate to the person definitively not being guilty.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Deadspin. They are the idiot thread if the idiot thread employed people who blogged. I'm surprised they didn't spoil Avengers Endgame when they had the chance.
I've been a teacher for 18 years and can say without doubt that this "teacher" is a fucking moron:
Parents outraged after son with autism was given 'most annoying' award
An Indiana elementary school and special education teacher are receiving backlash after an 11 year-old child with autism received a “most annoying male” superlative at an end-of-the-year school party.
Rick Castejon, the father of the non-verbal autistic fifth-grader at Bailly Preparatory Academy in Gary, Ind., ABC Chicago station WLS-TV that they were blindsided when their son received the “Bailly Preparatory Academy 2018-2019 Most Annoying Male” award while other students were given positive ones such as “most improved” or funniest.”
"When they called him up he was just excited to get a gold star because it was shiny," Castejon said.
He added, "I didn't want to cause a scene with other parents there, so I left the award on the table and tried walking away, but the teacher came back and said Akalis forgot his award."
The 11 year-old's mother Estella Castejon said she went to the school the next day demanding an apology from both the principal and the teacher.
She said she never got that apology, however, Dr. Peter Morikis of the Gary Community School Corporation released a statement which said that the teacher who initiated the award is facing disciplinary action.
“The Gary Community School Corporation does not condone this type of behavior and will continue to put the safety and well-being of our students first,” Morikis said. “We extend our deepest apologies to the impacted student, the family and anyone else who take offense to this unfortunate occurrence.”
Comments
-EV 8/14/93
and I'd again love to see these stats of how this "all works out".
-EV 8/14/93
national economics of revenue vs expenses, with so many variables, are never "common sense" or "just works out". sounds like a politician talking. lol
-EV 8/14/93
alright.
back to talking about idiots. lol
-EV 8/14/93
I just provided some raw data, which you ignored because it doesn't fit your position.
why would I be biased against smokers? and nothing I've said should give you the impression I am. that's obviously baseless.
-EV 8/14/93
the cost FAR outweighs the revenue gained from taxation. it's not "common sense" and it "doesn't work out".
-EV 8/14/93
how am i treating that differently than other habits or addictions? I didn't bring up the smoking thing. I'm responding to your assertion that it's not comparable, which I disagree with.
-EV 8/14/93
stating you assume someone is intelligent enough to agree with you is tantamount to stating if that person disagrees with you, they are therefore unintelligent.
defending myself against personal attacks is not slander, FFS.
I have proven time and again with every other poster in every other thread here that I have zero issue with disagreement. and that's all that needs to be said.
-EV 8/14/93
the original comparison was stupid habit vs stupid habit and what should and should not be covered by tax payers. the cost only came into it after you claimed smokers paid their fair share. that was never part of the comparison.
-EV 8/14/93
Just listened to Empty Garden and felt the need to deposit this f**king twit in this thread.
John Lennon? Seriously? Wtf were you thinking you dumb simple idiot? He just signed your record too. He's rotting in prison, but that's too good for this goofy bastard. It's funny how one insect can damage so much grain.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/nov/15/mark-david-chapman-john-lennon-killer-parole-hearing-transcript-shame
https://globalnews.ca/news/5135608/trapped-in-plane-bathroom-okanagan-woman-calls-incident-traumatic/?utm_medium=Facebook&utm_source=GlobalBC
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/alberta-man-who-accidentally-shot-girlfriend-during-sex-wins-appeal-1.4405884?cid=sm:trueanthem:ctvnews:post&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5ccbbcdee506e70001072461&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0YRgDmaB90i2lHDiExQHuqr1P3aPMZP6rMTMOLF6pJTqUXEvdJZ_-VKdI
Wonder if they are still together?
Whoever votes in favor of it is an idiot....
How could anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the legal system not understand that a finding of not guilty does not equate to the person definitively not being guilty.
Parents outraged after son with autism was given 'most annoying' award
An Indiana elementary school and special education teacher are receiving backlash after an 11 year-old child with autism received a “most annoying male” superlative at an end-of-the-year school party.
Rick Castejon, the father of the non-verbal autistic fifth-grader at Bailly Preparatory Academy in Gary, Ind., ABC Chicago station WLS-TV that they were blindsided when their son received the “Bailly Preparatory Academy 2018-2019 Most Annoying Male” award while other students were given positive ones such as “most improved” or funniest.”
"When they called him up he was just excited to get a gold star because it was shiny," Castejon said.
He added, "I didn't want to cause a scene with other parents there, so I left the award on the table and tried walking away, but the teacher came back and said Akalis forgot his award."
The 11 year-old's mother Estella Castejon said she went to the school the next day demanding an apology from both the principal and the teacher.
She said she never got that apology, however, Dr. Peter Morikis of the Gary Community School Corporation released a statement which said that the teacher who initiated the award is facing disciplinary action.
“The Gary Community School Corporation does not condone this type of behavior and will continue to put the safety and well-being of our students first,” Morikis said. “We extend our deepest apologies to the impacted student, the family and anyone else who take offense to this unfortunate occurrence.”