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.

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

Free climbers don’t usually die the first time, either.

Housing can’t really be a free market for a number of reasons: captive market; regional market restrictions; and high barrier to entry, to name a few.

Here’s a link that gives some insight into the situation, courtesy of @avidamoeba@lemmy.ca .

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?

Or subsidized industries.

The total new car market for 2023 was almost $90 billion. Of that, EV sales count for about 10.7%, or about $9.5 billion. Stats Can provides the first number, electricautonomy.ca was the source for the second, although they got their info from Stats Can, too.

There are a number of possible errors with this data, such as the percentage of EV sales being total sales vs. dollar sales, which would increase the amount spent on EVs since they tend to be more expensive.

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.

Assuming each view is a unique visitor, which is highly unlikely, it would only be 1% of our population. This is low penetrative. Now, how many of these visitors were passing on this misinformation to their creditors friends, that’s another question.

This is probably the most charitable interpretation of this scenario. Good for you.

I figured his wife put him on a diet and he was having none (or three times) of it.

Nah, I can’t see Teump getting on his knees. Not because of pride but because he probably wouldn’t be able to get back up without help.

This is related to the prosperity gospel, which Puritans were fully on board with. If God blessed you, you would prosper. Ergo, if you were prosperous it was because God had blessed you. Likewise, if you weren’t prosperous, it was because God was punishing you. And if God is punishing you, who am I to stop it? So not only is helping your fellow man who is struggling more than you not really what God wants you to do, you’re actually interfering in God’s punishment of this person.

Or it could just be an excuse to be shitty to people who weren’t as fortunate as you.

…Superstore/Loblaws.

That’s pretty much what they were saying south of the border. I’d prefer a more appealing option, but Pierre isn’t it.