• GreyEyedGhost
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    So I drink more pop than I should. Why should I have to pay more for my healthcare than my buddy who had a habit of timing running green lights as soon as they turned green. That isn’t illegal, either, yet it’s very risky behavior. It didn’t work out for him just one time, and he nearly died. Why should taxpayers have to pay for him?

    The answer is because the vast majority of us engage in risky behavior, or just have the bad taste of passing on our poor genetics to the next generation, and the social cost for penalizing people for not agreeing with societal norms are too high. This includes drug use, even legal ones like alcohol. Sure, don’t spend limited resources such as donated livers on people who aren’t willing to make the lifestyle changes required to make it worthwhile, because someone else will probably have to die for that to happen. But if we could make new livers and the price was reasonable, I wouldn’t even be against that.

      • GreyEyedGhost
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        What makes you think that I, posting in a Canadian community about a Canadian article, have a contract with a healthcare insurance company?

        • addictedtochaos@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          oh, sorry, there was much talk about public health insurance, i Of course don’t have a clue how that works in canada. sorry, my fault. I only focused on public health care, here in germany thats an insurance, i was ignorant.

          • GreyEyedGhost
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Not a problem. It’s essentially rolled into our taxes for the most part in Canada. You may have health insurance on top of that, but that isn’t a guarantee and usually is a top-up of our universal coverage. This usually covers things like drug prescriptions, glasses, and hospital conveniences such as semi-private or private rooms. I agree with the general idea, though, that we as a group pay for everyone who is covered. My original point at the top of this thread is that removing people’s eligibility simply because of risky behavior can be very tricky and likely harmful to society.

    • pipsqueak1984
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      If your buddy who likes gambling with green lights was convicted of a traffic offence as part of that accident he should have been on the hook for his own healthcare and the healthcare of anyone else he hurt.

      • GreyEyedGhost
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Way to miss the point. It’s a good thing you don’t engage in any risky behavior, or anything that would have a negative impact on your health. I mean, it’s not like you would be a hypocrite, right?

        • pipsqueak1984
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          I never said “Don’t engage in any risky behaviour”. Stuff like cardiovascular and lung diseases and Type 2 Diabetes doesn’t happen over the course of days, weeks, or months, you have to be chronically treating yourself like crap for years to get to those points.