|
Letter from "mychoice.ca" in regards to the smoking ban that starts today (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by zokissima
lol start smoking now kids :haha:
Obnoxious drunks bother me. Lets ban drinking in public places next. |
For the most part, we already have. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by zokissima
I'm not sure I follow.. Is it the noxious odor of the cigarette that bothers you, or the toxins? Because, on par with how many toxins are produced through a smoked pack of cigarettes, there are allready heavy taxes as soon as that pack is purchased...
Out of the cost of a cigaretter, half is tax, then on top of that GST and PST are paid... I'd say smokers are currently being fined heavily |
But what hes saying is hed rather have the taxes that they pay but yet not have the system pay for their medicare.
I hope he never gets an STD, or becomes obese because why should i pay for that? right? |
|
|
| basilisk |
| As usual, that's some ironclad logic :clown: |
|
|
| nacarter |
I hope he never gets an STD, or becomes obese because why should i pay for that? right? [/QUOTE]
You won't have to worry about either, I'm a marathon runner who's getting married next year and doesn't screw around. Since STD's are preventable 90% of the time, we shouldn't have to pay for people's stupidity.
Would I endorse private health care? To some degree I do, however considering the complete lack of ethics involved with how the US runs their system there are significant dangers.
I don't like the government handholding either, but considering that personal responsiblitly has the bed in western society, we're not giving the government many options. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
| quote: | | I hope he never gets an STD, or becomes obese because why should i pay for that? right? |
You won't have to worry about either, I'm a marathon runner who's getting married next year and doesn't screw around. Since STD's are preventable 90% of the time, we shouldn't have to pay for people's stupidity.
Would I endorse private health care? To some degree I do, however considering the complete lack of ethics involved with how the US runs their system there are significant dangers.
I don't like the government handholding either, but considering that personal responsiblitly has the bed in western society, we're not giving the government many options. |
So what if you pull a muscle or get a sports related injury? Why should i pay your bills? |
|
|
| nacarter |
The answer to your question comes down to how you define a successful society. Which is more important - helping somebody go from 10 to 11 or helping somebody go from 0 to 1? The individualistic utopia that the neo-cons claim is superior sees the people at 0, as there of their own volition and derserving of punishment. Somebody at 10 deserves to go to 11 because of devine providence - good old-fashioned Calvinism.
Public healthcare, while not perfect, is an investment helping people go from 0 to 1. No access to routine healthcare means that later health problems are worse once they're discovered meaning more time in hospital at greater expense to the system. People without basic health coverage are also forced to take more sick time (several studies in the US confirm this), so the economic cost is high as well. Even with sports injuries, I'm usually at the doctor 3 times a year or less. Overweight people, smokers, heavy drinkers, drug users, etc. are usually at the doctor 5 or more times per year. That's a big cost difference. Since I choose to maintain a healthy lifestyle, you get to save money.
Canada's political parties have by and large missed the boat on why public healthcare is failing. Everybody keeps saying put more money it, get more nurses, more doctors, more hospitals and things will get better... WRONG!
Scandinavian public health care works well. Not because its socialized as the NDP would claim, but because there is far less usage of the system. Take Finland for example. Everytime somebody uses a health care service, five people in Canada are using the health system. Of course its overrun - it is not designed for the lazy decadent lifestyle of most North Americans.
You want to fix healthcare in Canada, give up on the current and last generations - we're a loss. Start with people under age ten. Put money into preventative healthcare initiatives - i.e. reinstate Participaction. Make Phys-Ed mandatory, and tailor it so it fits the needs of multiple types of people (i.e. make the emphasis fitness rather than sports). The Conservatives have gotten it a little bit with the tax credit for putting your kids into sports and getting them active (an initiative they stole from the Green Party), but it's literally doing the least they could have. A fast food tax is not necesarily a bad idea either - It should not cost more for juice and fresh fruit than it does for pop and a Big Mac! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
I define a successful society as a happy society. And canadians are not happy. And they are less so when they have someone telling them how to live. Im glad you brought up scandinavia because did you know that even in these bastians of socialism even they have figured out that public medicare doesnt work? Thats right, all those countries have "2 tier medicine" ( a mix of private and public).
If you are going to let the healthcare system be a crutch as to how to determine a person's lifestyle, at least let me opt out.
And who says your lifestyle is any better??
Athletes routinely have serious ailments such as torn ligaments, arthritis, and back problems. So why should i pay for your lifestyle any more than i should pay for a smokers?
You are both doing something you enjoy that has absolutely no benefit to society. The only difference is that one has been demonized and one has not. |
|
|
| dallastar |
hey, just a question?
people at work keep asking me where to smoke - i just say go for a walk and then they seem to think that you are not able to smoke on the sidewalk either. I think that's complete BS. We are not allowed to smoke on the property here anymore! I don't mind walking around the neighbourhood at all, I usually do anyways but is there truth to my coworkers thinking that we can not smoke while walking on the sidewalk?
D.a.l.l.a.s. |
|
|
| geroin |
| absolutely agree with Jay |
|
|
| basilisk |
| quote: | | You won't have to worry about either, I'm a marathon runner who's getting married next year and doesn't screw around. Since STD's are preventable 90% of the time, we shouldn't have to pay for people's stupidity. |
You have a source for that statistic? Technically STDs are 100% preventable by way of abstinence, but that's just for religious freaks and fat people. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
The answer to your question comes down to how you define a successful society. Which is more important - helping somebody go from 10 to 11 or helping somebody go from 0 to 1? The individualistic utopia that the neo-cons claim is superior sees the people at 0, as there of their own volition and derserving of punishment. Somebody at 10 deserves to go to 11 because of devine providence - good old-fashioned Calvinism. |
The funny thing about your "individualistic uptopia" comment is that Socialism actually makes people more self-centered and concieted... Mainly because when one percieves a problem to be the Government's responsibility, they figure it's not their job to help out. One figures, "I paid my taxes, I did my part."
But that's why so many people LOVE socialism, Socialist governments are more than happy to take our money and tell us it's being used to help the poor, disabled, oppressed, the common good, etc. (all the while, it's actually being spent on paper-work and the 5% annual raise the Unions demand) When all the ugly problems of society are no longer something we need to worry about, because, well, the Government worries about that now. Then people stop caring about the problems that matter, and move on to petty issues like pit-bull and smoking bans, and when they're done letting the Government "solve" those problems, the next issue will be chewing gum, then telling people they have to keep their lawns cut to at least X length, and when that's been achieved your house has to be a certain colour so it doesn't clash with mine, not that I know you, because I'm so busy during the day while I drive to my personal office in my personal vehicle then back to my private house, with my private 6-foot-wooden-fenced backyard and go for a swim in my private pool and drift into my private thoughts where no one can bug me, not that they will, because they're watching TV in their own house, disconnected from society just like the rest of it. And that's exactly what a Socialist government wants, because if people aren't interacting with eachother, then they can't convey their anti-socialist message to the rest of society, who are too busy watching CBC being told that war solves nothing and basketball courts solve crime to even CARE that they no longer have any rights, except the right to remove everyone else's rights. And when something they love gets banned, no one else gives a , because it doesn't affect them. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
The funny thing about your "individualistic uptopia" comment is that Socialism actually makes people more self-centered and concieted... Mainly because when one percieves a problem to be the Government's responsibility, they figure it's not their job to help out. One figures, "I paid my taxes, I did my part."
But that's why so many people LOVE socialism, Socialist governments are more than happy to take our money and tell us it's being used to help the poor, disabled, oppressed, the common good, etc. (all the while, it's actually being spent on paper-work and the 5% annual raise the Unions demand) When all the ugly problems of society are no longer something we need to worry about, because, well, the Government worries about that now. Then people stop caring about the problems that matter, and move on to petty issues like pit-bull and smoking bans, and when they're done letting the Government "solve" those problems, the next issue will be chewing gum, then telling people they have to keep their lawns cut to at least X length, and when that's been achieved your house has to be a certain colour so it doesn't clash with mine, not that I know you, because I'm so busy during the day while I drive to my personal office in my personal vehicle then back to my private house, with my private 6-foot-wooden-fenced backyard and go for a swim in my private pool and drift into my private thoughts where no one can bug me, not that they will, because they're watching TV in their own house, disconnected from society just like the rest of it. And that's exactly what a Socialist government wants, because if people aren't interacting with eachother, then they can't convey their anti-socialist message to the rest of society, who are too busy watching CBC being told that war solves nothing and basketball courts solve crime to even CARE that they no longer have any rights, except the right to remove everyone else's rights. And when something they love gets banned, no one else gives a , because it doesn't affect them. |
ZING! |
|
|
|
|
