Of course there's the dead end scenario. Your addict has been ignoring all the medical advice and now he's puking, shitting, pissing blood so he goes to his clinic. There he is told by his friendly physician "sorry son, your life credits have just run out, here's the name of the local pauper's funeral parlour I suggest yuo contact them". Now your addict is way off his timescale regarding a fix and is a whole lot psychotic so pulls a gun and blows away his trusted physician. Are you hard line "burn-the-b@st@ds-in-hel_l" brigade people going to tell his widow that it was for the best?
If only life was as simple as a line in the sand.
If only it was your brother facing the final curtain.
0
In Los You "pay" To Kill Yourself
Started by cognos, 2009-11-08 01:08
|
67 replies to this topic
#52
473geo
Platinum Member Posted 2009-11-08 17:24:41
In some countries the heaviest tax level (excluding salaries,company tax and the like) is levied on Cigarrettes, alchohol, and transport fuel.
All monies paid to the governments.......so if the governments return these taxes into the system to assist the users of these products, if their health declines due to usage.....surely fair?? Now if they would just legalise and define a way of obtaining revenue from recreational drugs.......where is the issue?? #53
F1fanatic
Platinum Member Posted 2009-11-08 17:51:35
I won't get into the arguments about addiction being a disease as my views have been aired on this forum many times and i also treat drug users and alcoholics here in the LOS for a living. But as the op said the injuries sustained are self inflicted. If that is the criteria to determine whether someone should pay, ask your selves this. If a rugby player breaks a leg should he also pay?? Just like the drug user he: Started off with one game He knew it was dangerous He knew he could get hurt playing rugby He continued playing in the full knowledge of the risk He has probably been injured before but went back to it nonetheless Apart from the social and legal elements what is different? change rugby to hockey and that me..point taken Having being involved in lower,lower, league football I can assure you that additional sports injury insurance was a condition of running a team in those leagues I was involved with, so sports injuries already have a built in solution. I doubt the drug ghettos have such a requirenent for entry!!! As a scuba diver I can assure you that I don't have to take out any insurance to cover any injuries I may sustain. Amateur sports enthusiasts can do whatever they like without worrying about insurance to cover any injuries they receive. As for those who believe that addicted drug users are the scum of the earth and should be left to die - you have obviously been lucky enough to never care about anyone who became addicted to drugs. I haven't been so lucky. Someone I cared about who had a truly terrible childhood and took to drugs and alcohol in an attempt to forget about it, became addicted. It was impossible to talk to him about it, as he genuinely thought he was happier that way! It took MANY years (and a suicide attempt during that time), before he eventually came to realise (when he was around 40!) that he was not happier that way and needed to do something about it. Of course they put him on methadone (which for those who know nothing about addiction is EVEN WORSE than heroin!). Its taken a few years, but he's slowly cutting down on the methadone and for the first time in his life beginning to feel happy and to see that perhaps he could have a life. Addiction is down to personality and life experience. Those who are so smug as to feel those unfortunate people should be denied care and just vilified, are the people who pass on the other side of the road when they see something awful happening. #54
473geo
Platinum Member Posted 2009-11-08 18:03:46
And the smug people who ignore available medical insurance, to keep money in their own pockets - are depreciating the goverment medical funds which could be allocated to care for those who made a poor decision in life, or were not aware of the possible outcome!!
So which side are you driving on F1?? Edit - spelling Edited by 473geo, 2009-11-08 18:04:30. #55
F1fanatic
Platinum Member Posted 2009-11-08 18:08:55
And the smug people who ignore available medical insurance, to keep money in their own pockets - are depreciating the goverment medical funds which could be allocated to care for those who made a poor decision in life, or were not aware of the possible outcome!! So which side are you driving on F1?? Edit - spelling Sorry, don't understand the point you are making. Personally I took out DAN insurance cos I didn't want to be stuck in a foreign country arguing about DCS! #56
473geo
Platinum Member Posted 2009-11-08 18:32:01
And the smug people who ignore available medical insurance, to keep money in their own pockets - are depreciating the goverment medical funds which could be allocated to care for those who made a poor decision in life, or were not aware of the possible outcome!! So which side are you driving on F1?? Edit - spelling Sorry, don't understand the point you are making. Personally I took out DAN insurance cos I didn't want to be stuck in a foreign country arguing about DCS! So insurance is not compulsory in sport and you cite an example.....a negative and futile response as this fact is rather well known...the positive answer surely is that it should be compulsory (maybe you can clean up your sport if lack of insurance cover is so widespread).....more pertinent perhaps, insurance companies should not be allowed to offer 'cash' incentives if the treatment can be obtained in a state hospital for free!!.......there are many angles on payment for medical care, and drugs may be high profile and evocative, but the financial realities require addressing.......not the emotional ones.......read my post on the government taxes above.......the fact that you do have insurance is commendable......now if all did just that........get my point? #57
F1fanatic
Platinum Member Posted 2009-11-08 19:02:31
And the smug people who ignore available medical insurance, to keep money in their own pockets - are depreciating the goverment medical funds which could be allocated to care for those who made a poor decision in life, or were not aware of the possible outcome!! So which side are you driving on F1?? Edit - spelling Sorry, don't understand the point you are making. Personally I took out DAN insurance cos I didn't want to be stuck in a foreign country arguing about DCS! So insurance is not compulsory in sport and you cite an example.....a negative and futile response as this fact is rather well known...the positive answer surely is that it should be compulsory (maybe you can clean up your sport if lack of insurance cover is so widespread).....more pertinent perhaps, insurance companies should not be allowed to offer 'cash' incentives if the treatment can be obtained in a state hospital for free!!.......there are many angles on payment for medical care, and drugs may be high profile and evocative, but the financial realities require addressing.......not the emotional ones.......read my post on the government taxes above.......the fact that you do have insurance is commendable......now if all did just that........get my point? I still don't get your point. Are you saying that anyone who participates in any sport should have insurance? Children at school should have insurance for their P.E. lessons? Really don't get your point at all. #58
473geo
Platinum Member Posted 2009-11-08 19:42:03
I expected that response from someone who again is trying to find fault rather than be constructive........children should of course be encouraged to participate in sport, this should actually strengthen a body thus hopefully less healthcare maintenance later!!, Children, as you are no doubt aware are much more supple boned than their older couterparts and in my opinion, (though I have not looked up data) suffer more injuries in the playground than on the sports field. But as you suggest a school sports policycover would be a suggestion - however as I would expect this to be goverment funded then why not give free healthcare while at school as is already in place in most countries - exceptions being when playing sports outside school juristiction......then yes sports insurance......still too complicated for you to grasp...????
Edit spelling....don't wish to create any further confusion...  .
Edited by 473geo, 2009-11-08 19:44:16. #59
cognos
Super Member Posted 2009-11-08 23:14:51
What an ignorance festival. Do some research on addiction before polluting the cyberspace with such garbage. Addicts need help of course because they hurt other people in society, model self destrustive coping habits and create yet more addicts. Thailand has record high levels(top 5-10 per capita) of alcohol abuse for any country. Countries around the world should follow the examples of countries that deal with addiction by reducing their numbers. Following Thailand on substance abuse issues is pure retardation. What is next following Russia on how to treat alcohol abuse? Please enlighten me on an example of a "model country".. I'm always up to becoming less ignorant #60
cognos
Super Member Posted 2009-11-08 23:17:30
Of course there's the dead end scenario. Your addict has been ignoring all the medical advice and now he's puking, shitting, pissing blood so he goes to his clinic. There he is told by his friendly physician "sorry son, your life credits have just run out, here's the name of the local pauper's funeral parlour I suggest yuo contact them". Now your addict is way off his timescale regarding a fix and is a whole lot psychotic so pulls a gun and blows away his trusted physician. Are you hard line "burn-the-b@st@ds-in-hel_l" brigade people going to tell his widow that it was for the best? If only life was as simple as a line in the sand. If only it was your brother facing the final curtain. it was..he spent 600,000 CDN on heroin in 14 months..and begged me for $10.. I refused.. but told him I would help him if he wanted help #61
nisakiman
Senior Member Posted 2009-11-09 01:59:08
I said early on in this thread that it was a slippery slope, but there is another aspect to it also.
Let's say we have a hypothetical Mr A and Mr B. Mr A is a virtually teetotal, non-smoking man who eats all the "right" foods sparsely,exercises regularly and generally looks after his body. Mr B is a near alcoholic who drinks like a fish, chain smokes, eats all the "wrong" foods to excess and takes his exercise on the couch in front of the TV. So we are saying that of course, Mr A must take priority in any health care that may be needed, having been living the "right" kind of life. But let us look a little deeper. Mr A, our teetotal, non-smoking clean living guy, is a supremely selfish, racist, misanthropic asshol_e who doesn't think twice about destroying peoples lives in pursuit of personal gain. Mr B, our drinking, smoking gourmand is a jolly, friendly, forgiving chap, who spends most of his spare time working voluntarily for charitable organisations in an effort to improve some poor unfortunate's life. I have known people who fall into both categories, so it's not entirely hypothetical. In fact, if you'd like to look back in history just a few years, our Mr A is very similar to one Adolph Hitler. And our Mr B is not dissimilar to a Mr Winston Churchill. So do we still prioritise Mr A? #62
473geo
Platinum Member Posted 2009-11-09 02:34:39
Of course because when the filter is run 400,000 Mr A candidates appear before Mr B.......so he never really enters the race......
#63
nisakiman
Senior Member Posted 2009-11-09 03:16:53
Of course because when the filter is run 400,000 Mr A candidates appear before Mr B.......so he never really enters the race...... Exactly. That's why there should be no discrimination in health matters. And who is to be the arbiter, and what might their political agenda be? A slippery slope... #64
473geo
Platinum Member Posted 2009-11-09 03:22:55
Of course because when the filter is run 400,000 Mr A candidates appear before Mr B.......so he never really enters the race...... Exactly. That's why there should be no discrimination in health matters. And who is to be the arbiter, and what might their political agenda be? A slippery slope... Quite: because the way around the filter is of course well defined............if Mr B has the means and the right connections......the filter may not apply....... 
#65
phetaroi
Platinum Member Posted 2009-11-09 03:49:49
But where does it stop.. Do we also not treat the drinkers ?? Or how about the people who are crowding accident and emergency on a saturday night with cuts and fights from drinking ?? I mean they chose to go out in that environment ?? Or the guy who crashes a sportbike.. I mean he chose to ride the bike ?? Or the skydiver who breaks an ankle ?? Or the guy who has a heart attack because he has a bad diet ?? Or the guy who has a bad back because he doesnt exercise enough ?? Its easy to see everyone elses problems as 'self induced' and your own as merely circumstance. Well, I think that is the question, although I thought it was in reference not to should be treated, but should public funds be used to treat them. #66
phetaroi
Platinum Member Posted 2009-11-09 04:07:01
Yet, to me there's an awfully big difference between choosing to start using cocaine and choosing to drive on an interstate highway. Certainly. But how about an abused child who, at 13 'chooses' to use cocaine to numb the pain? That child grows to be a 'half-man' addict. Shall we exercise compassion, or just get a rope and take him to the nearest hanging tree? 1. The discussion was not whether or not someone should be hanged. The discussion was whether or not the "state" should pay for medical care. 2. I'm apparently not quite as sympathetic to 13 year olds, as are you. Do you think they don't know right from wrong? I was a middle school teacher and administrator my whole adult life. Most clearly know right from wrong. The degree of judgment is the question when dealing with teens. 3. I guess compassion is a slippery slope, as well. "Aw, the poor 13 year old abused drug user." "Aw, the poor mass murderer." "Aw, the poor child molester." Where exactly does compassion end? #67
way2muchcoffee
Platinum Member Posted 2009-11-09 09:37:30
1. The discussion was not whether or not someone should be hanged. The discussion was whether or not the "state" should pay for medical care. Indeed. A point I made at the end of my brief conversation with neverdie. Nevertheless. A hanging tree or a street gutter (without medical attention) are not so far from each other.
2. I'm apparently not quite as sympathetic to 13 year olds, as are you. Do you think they don't know right from wrong? I was a middle school teacher and administrator my whole adult life. Most clearly know right from wrong. The degree of judgment is the question when dealing with teens. Yes. Most 13 year olds know right from wrong. However, on the issue of substance use what is right or wrong? Society sends very mixed messages here. Alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, antidepressants, antipsychotics, ritalin, etc. All legal. Some causing harm to society. Marijuana, mushrooms, etc, not legal. Hmmm. Can you honestly say that there is a clear right and wrong in this? Is it the legality that makes things right or wrong? Is there a moral angle? Is there a higher order right/wrong involved? If so, what is it? Their peers are telling them it's fine, great even, to experiment with substances. Pop culture, music, tv, all tend to reinforce this to some extent. There is the allure of being cool, unique, individualistic, in a stultifying suburban sameness or inner-city madness. Teens are at an age where they are defining themselves, embracing life, experiencing, rebelling, questioning, and formulating beliefs. It is no surprise that many normal, healthy, intelligent teens engage in drug-taking. It is even less of a surprise that the unfortunate, abused or traumatized child would be even more likely to use drugs.
3. I guess compassion is a slippery slope, as well. "Aw, the poor 13 year old abused drug user." "Aw, the poor mass murderer." "Aw, the poor child molester." Where exactly does compassion end? Compassion never ends. It is what separates us from the beasts. Edited by way2muchcoffee, 2009-11-09 09:48:58. #68
F1fanatic
Platinum Member Posted 2009-11-09 15:58:49
I expected that response from someone who again is trying to find fault rather than be constructive........children should of course be encouraged to participate in sport, this should actually strengthen a body thus hopefully less healthcare maintenance later!!, Children, as you are no doubt aware are much more supple boned than their older couterparts and in my opinion, (though I have not looked up data) suffer more injuries in the playground than on the sports field. But as you suggest a school sports policycover would be a suggestion - however as I would expect this to be goverment funded then why not give free healthcare while at school as is already in place in most countries - exceptions being when playing sports outside school juristiction......then yes sports insurance......still too complicated for you to grasp...???? Edit spelling....don't wish to create any further confusion... .I would have thought my previous posts on this issue would have shown you that I'm not trying to find fault (I'm sorry you took it this way) - its something I care about as I know somebody who has been a drug addict and, after many years, FINALLY managed to start getting his life together. Unfortunately many people cannot afford to take out private health insurance - should they be banned from taking up any activity that may result in an injury? School sports policy cover, as you say, is paid for by the tax payer in most Western countries - but why should it be? Following your argument through, why should people without children pay for other people's children? Don't worry, you don't need to correct your spelling - just post in a coherent way.
|
Sponsored by ... |
