Well, I can buy cigarettes or not. If I buy them, I pay the tax as a part of the price. And what do you mean with "keeping up with the cost"?

As for the thing with minors and cars and smoking... Every age limit is by itself discriminatory. That example just goes to show that, and it shows an example of a really stupid law.

		Head banger wrote:
		if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes.  dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost.  mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time. here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car.  so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends.  19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over.  while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke.  ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.      _strat_ wrote: Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous. And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible. Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.      guidogodoy wrote: Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge.  Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes. I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all? Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM

Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.

And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.

Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.

		guidogodoy wrote:
		Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge.  Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes. I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all? Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM

Well, speaking from experience, taking care of your teeth does not neccesarily protect you from trouble. I always took care of my teeth, and I have one root canal and about half a dozen fillings. 

In any case, as I said, some prevention can be done. Regular checkups, blood tests, whatever... But, you can still be the most healthy person in the world, and get hurt. You may have a car crash, there can be an earthquake, you can get cancer just from living in a city, and inhaling the exhaust fumes. Like I said, it would be a total mess, and that kind of a system may even cost more than the one we have now. Someone would have to evaluate those risks. A lot of people would have to be employed, and payed to keep the cost dow. A wonderfull paradox.

Now, if you get hurt for doing something really irresponisble, I would agree that you have to pay for at least some treatment yourself. But the guilt has to be clearly established and proven.

		Head banger wrote:
		if you climb mountains you pay more, if you drink, smoke, eat lots of fatty foods....  should people who get traped on a mountain and need a hugely expensive rescue pay for it?  now, to track that sort of thing in advance.  probably mess is right.   health care can diagnose problems before they become significant, so that treatment is easier.  like taking care of your teath rather than geting one infected and needing a root canal, or surgery.      _strat_ wrote: Well, then it would be a matter of determining your risk level, which may change constantly. Changing jobs, moving, getting married or divorced, having kids... Loads of things would change it. We would end up with a complete mess. As for prevention, there is only so much that can be done. Sure, you can get shots against diseases. But thats about as much as healthcare can do, I guess. No doctor can prevent your leg from breaking.      Head banger wrote: with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present.  But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that.  makes no sense.  would be cheaper to treat people up front.      _strat_ wrote: Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along. As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.      Head banger wrote: a blended scenario???  should people not have some responsibility for their health?  sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much.  (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\      _strat_ wrote: Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.  I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.      Head banger wrote: personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care.  just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated.  there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now.  a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months.  a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.   I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times.  at least here it does.

Absolutely. And if I get a bit broader, why stop at healthcare? Why dont we say that physical protection is not a right, and do away with police and courts? We would end up with a conclusion that anything organised by people is a waste of something, and go to the survival of the fittest. And that would be a waste of a couple of millenias worth of civilisation.

		Deep Freeze wrote:
		Oh , and one other thing;  WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one  person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population????? My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????      Head banger wrote: with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present.  But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that.  makes no sense.  would be cheaper to treat people up front.      _strat_ wrote: Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along. As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.      Head banger wrote: a blended scenario???  should people not have some responsibility for their health?  sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much.  (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\      _strat_ wrote: Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.  I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.      Head banger wrote: personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care.  just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated.  there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now.  a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months.  a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.   I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times.  at least here it does.

Ah! At last! A subject with which I have personal experience and can speak from there safely!!!

Most of you are aware of my situation and the events that led up to my current condition. I have not really hidden it as I have nothing to be ashamed of, given that I truly did NOT want to stop working! I loved my job and I miss it very much to this very day. Having said this, I know first hand that the United States has a dismal healthcare system. Dismal. We have some of, if not THE best, doctors in the world but our system is horrible. I have TWO examples!!....

I worked for twenty years in the same industry. Most of that time I was with the same company. I paid tens of thousands of dollars PLUS into a system (matched by my employer) that was (allegedly) designed to "protect" me in the event of a medical disaster. As many of you remember, when that day actually came, I was put through a living hell. Nearly three years of mistreatment, denials, legal fights and whatnot...all to get the benefits for which I had paid my whole working life.

Had it not been for GREAT insurance and a good pension, I would have been destitue. And NO ONE would have given two shakes about me. Now, the Princess suffers from a debilitating, hereditary blood disease. She cannot work. She is barely able to function in a capacity that would be considered "normal" on many days. She has applied for help with medical treatments and been denied. Over and over. We are not able to insure her privately because of her disease, even though she needs minimal treatments (phlebotomies, blood checks, medication). NO insurance company will cover her at ANY price and the government says she is not poor enough! I cannot work so she cannot get coverage from me. Long story short, she suffers and we slowly go broke pulling money from savings to pay for her REQUIRED treatments. If we do not, she dies. Period.

We live in the richest country on earth. I love this country and you all know that. I am heartbroken when we get the letters of denial because she gets SO hopeful that someone will help her and we continue to be told, NO. Yet, they approved her son on the first request and he HAS insurance through her ex-husband (his dad).!!!  How can this country turn its back on the citizens that need it so desperately?? She is not asking for a monthly check!!! She is only asking that they help her get the treatments she MUST have.

True. Well, I guess a couple of millions wouldnt hurt me. Im that modest. Dont expect it tho, thats why I dont play it. I figure its best to keep the money that I would spend on it, and I dont mean to risk it all for a fortune.

Kinda like starting a business, I guess.

		Head banger wrote:
		want and expect are different.  I sure as hell want to.  expect to is different.  but I saw a study a while ago that 10% of canadians are counting on the lotto for their retirement.  thats stupid      _strat_ wrote: Frankly, I dont think most people want to "win the lotto", or are at least not seriously expecting it. A normal, decent life would suffice, at least for me.      Head banger wrote: its harder, and it also is unlikely people will try.  its the same with the lotto, more people buy when the prize is 40 mill than 2 mil.  your odds of winning are the same, and realy, 2 mil is a good prize, but its not inspiring.      _strat_ wrote: Well, it makes it harder too reach for the stars, but at least it guarantees a certain minimum that you can always count on, no matter how down on your luck you may be.      Head banger wrote: but... the welfare state provides less incentive to work, reducing the total production of the state, so everyone has less      _strat_ wrote: Of course it matters. Its just this pride and all the emotion that goes with it (speaking of nationality here) that I dont understand. Come tho think of it, I dont want to understand it. The government sets things up, and thats about as much as it can do. A certain number (a majority) of people still have to work.  And as far as Im concerned, while it has its drawbacks, a welfare state is a very good thing. Does much more good than harm.      Head banger wrote: ah, but you said that nothing from before your birth mattered.   the government absolutly depends on its people, but many governments set things up so the people depend on it, and cant take actions for themselfs.      _strat_ wrote: Then I should also be ashamed for what they did wrong. And why stop at parents? Why not go back all the way to that first monkey that jumped off a tree and said "oh, Im tired of eating bananas. I want some BBQ!" and invented fire. That, and family and nation are two very different things.      Head banger wrote: so you feel no pride in what your parents acomplished?      _strat_ wrote: Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny. Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth. Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.      spapad wrote: So pride in being who  you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have  a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from. No thanks.      _strat_ wrote: Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists. Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that. As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.      Head banger wrote:   in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"  today that would be a very right wing idea.  what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing?