Gradfathering Tobacco

[guyser]

Two years ago in Calgary, I needed an MRI. They thought I had cancer and the doc wouldn't look at me until he had the MRI. It was going to be a three month wait. But a private outfit had opened up and thankfully I could afford the $600 they charged. I got it that day. As it turns out the original diagnosis was wrong, but this saved my family and myself three months of emotional agony. So yeah, it's all American propaganda. NOT!

The point was that the Govt does not decide when or if you are to get an MRI. That comes right from the scaremongers for universal healthcare in the states.

Your personal situation aside, and I am pleased to hear you are ok,it still was not decided by any govt nor any govt official.

May I ask a personal Q ? Why not a biopsy ? M<ine was scheduled in a matter of a day or two

[RNG]

The point was that the Govt does not decide when or if you are to get an MRI. That comes right from the scaremongers for universal healthcare in the states.

Your personal situation aside, and I am pleased to hear you are ok,it still was not decided by any govt nor any govt official.

May I ask a personal Q ? Why not a biopsy ? M<ine was scheduled in a matter of a day or two

Interestingly enough, Mrs RNG worked at the Southern Alberta cancer treatment facility for 13 years as the oncological dietitian. The initial diagnosis was lung cancer, and I guess trying to biopsy that is extremely intrusive and potentially dangerous. But the medical association, the cancer board and most hospital administrations were begging the government for more MRI machines. Interestingly enough, about 15 months later they did almost double the number of MRI's in the province.

[guyser]

Interestingly enough, Mrs RNG worked at the Southern Alberta cancer treatment facility for 13 years as the oncological dietitian. The initial diagnosis was lung cancer, and I guess trying to biopsy that is extremely intrusive and potentially dangerous. But the medical association, the cancer board and most hospital administrations were begging the government for more MRI machines. Interestingly enough, about 15 months later they did almost double the number of MRI's in the province.

Thank you, and apologies for prying. I suspected that it was having to do with the a more intrusive spot than mine (prostrate)whereby they just snip away up ones ass.

And women think childbirth is painful....pfffffft..............

[RNG]

Thank you, and apologies for prying. I suspected that it was having to do with the a more intrusive spot than mine (prostrate)whereby they just snip away up ones ass.

And women think childbirth is painful....pfffffft..............

I feel your pain.

[The_Squid]

As good as our healthcare is in Canada, there is no denying how poor it is in some ways. MRI's are one example of where our system falters badly. I have a personal anecdote I could share, but since that seems to be unacceptable to some, here are some average wait times:

The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks. Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland and Labrador residents waited longest (20.0 weeks).

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html#ixzz12NJVUgXg

Granted, this is 3 years ago but I doubt that it has improved.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=3eb2756e-c3af-414a-bfa2-3472e15d3f70&k=31511

From VIHA's own report:

Emergency MRIs do not have a wait time, and patients who are classified by physicians for

an emergency MRI get, and will continue to receive, their MRI examination within 24 hours.

• Currently, wait times for non-emergency MRIs is approximately 11 months in Greater

Victoria and approximately 14 months in Nanaimo (as of January 2010). VIHA recognizes

this geographic discrepancy and we are working to develop more equitable and balanced

access across Vancouver Island.

http://www.viha.ca/NR/rdonlyres/697DC861-D163-4DF3-90FE-72368BCCDA69/0/fact_sheet_mri_wait_times_9feb2010.pdf

11-14 months for a MRI? That is absolutely absurd and unacceptable!! I would gladly pay the $600 and go to the private MRI clinic in Courtenay or Vancouver.

[Shwa]

I have yet to form an opinion on the subject and the OP was strictly to lubricate the angles of debate. By nature I am a staunch libertarian so I do believe government has no role to play in social behaviour. However, I am also a realist and I know that whether I like it or not, for the foreseeable future the Canadian government will be assuming the responsibility for my health care despite my objections.

Now since as a Canadian I have signed over all rights to the government to decide what medicines they will allow for my treatment, how timely I will be seen by a physician, which surgeon will see me and whether the surgeries, diagnostics or, hospital stay, etc etc will even be performed.....all at my expense of course courtesy of a tax funded system averaging 50% of every penny collected and rising.......it seems to me that I have to accept that the greatest drain on our healthcare system is a result of the effects of smoking itself.

So trying to raise the first tobacco free generation attacks no current smokers right, presumably the ones too addicted to cease the habit. And I see little difference between my grandson not being allowed to buy or inherit certain ammunition and products with which to discharge them and not being allowed to buy or inherit tobacco and certain products with which to smoke them.

In essence, I am looking for a good reason that a state who demands the citizens accede to their healthcare monopoly, and are forcing them to pay for it, then you see a reduction in services, should continue to make available a product which is the root of the greatest drain on resources of the system.

No business or household would operate this way. It is akin to heating a prairie box with three walls.

A libertarian? Well that is different. My apologies then, I thought you were one of those because-my-grampappy-said conservatives. My mistake. I take all my Alberta insults back. Besides, I am an Eskimos fan and Iginla is one of the best and most underrated hockey players of all time...

So I am wondering - since this seems to be a prevalent thought among libertarians - is exactly when did you "sign over all rights" or "accede to their healthcare monopoly?" As I see it you never really had a choice in the first place according to your your participation as a citizen of the country.

It seems to me that this is about the same as - to take a page from B-C's book - someone complaining before the Court of the Queen's Bench that they weren't read their Miranda rights.

[ToadBrother]

2. Anyone who calls themselves a "libertarian" and sees such a bill as a government invasion of personal rights must be losing their mind over tax funded hospitals, cancer research and a regulatory body to approve the safety of consumer goods and enforce pharmaceutical regulations.

I think a Libertarian, at least an unvarnished one, would find the notion of tax funded hospitals, cancer research and anything but minimum regulations as undue power to the government.

I have no problem with the "protecting our tax dollars" line of thinking... to a point. I think such an argument could be too expansive and be abused, and in some cases has been abused. But I'm uneasy about this concept for another reason; and that's mainly that it essentially sets up two types of citizens. Equality before the law isn't something that should be discarded, even for what we perceive as a really good cause.

Beyond that, the number of smokers has been falling for some time, in part because of taxes and in part because of better education. It strikes me that the problem is being resolved, and attempting to outright kill it won't likely do so, and may have some rather unfortunate unforeseen consequences.

Edited October 14, 2010 by ToadBrother

[grainfedprairieboy]

I am an Eskimos fan

Jesus H Christ - your stock with me just rose 100 points.

So I am wondering - since this seems to be a prevalent thought among libertarians - is exactly when did you "sign over all rights" or "accede to their healthcare monopoly?" As I see it you never really had a choice in the first place according to your your participation as a citizen of the country.

It seems to me that this is about the same as - to take a page from B-C's book - someone complaining before the Court of the Queen's Bench that they weren't read their Miranda rights.

If I understand what you're saying correctly then here is my answer: I signed over all my rights by national consensus rather then individual choice. As such, I cannot opt out of a provincial health care plan......and........receive a cheque from the receiver general rebating me 50% of all taxes I pay in support of the health care system. In Canada you are either in and you pay for it or you are out and still pay for it. No middle ground.

My main objection to the health care system is that consumer choice is reduced and to simplify things let's look at MRIs. I currently pay for access to an MRI through excessive taxes and a promise by government that the service is there however, I can only access the service after a lengthy wait period and a doctor's prescription and that is based on him believing there is something that warrants the scan.

Or of course I can pony up the cash now (with a doctor's prescription) for timely access which in any other industry would be considered a kind of extortion, but not when government does it.

But being forced to pay for something I have already paid for to me demonstrates the system does not work. Having to ask a doctor for his blessing (he gets to bill government for that visit) like some schmoe begging the Don for a favour just adds insult to injury. It should not matter if I want a preventative scan or am looking to fill a gap in my day. My health is my business and not the governments.

But government does decide which medication, treatments and procedures I will be entitled to and my choice is limited to agreeing or seeking treatment outside of the country for an additional expense. I cannot be a terminally ill cancer patient in Canada and demand experimental treatment as an example. It must be offered.

Whether governments have enacted seat belt and helmet laws to save money on health care I suppose is debatable. I certainly recall that sentiment bandied about as good reason for such laws by those who advocated them at the time.

As such, if I am the guy paying for your health care, and given that in a country where so many people don't work, or work for the various levels of government, there are few of us who are actually wealth generators and the entire burden ultimately falls on us and thus it would afford my kind a tremendous savings if we could reduce the greatest drain on the system.

That and maybe I like to piss off rebellious kids who think smoking is cool.

[RNG]

As good as our healthcare is in Canada, there is no denying how poor it is in some ways. MRI's are one example of where our system falters badly. I have a personal anecdote I could share, but since that seems to be unacceptable to some, here are some average wait times:

Granted, this is 3 years ago but I doubt that it has improved.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=3eb2756e-c3af-414a-bfa2-3472e15d3f70&k=31511

From VIHA's own report:

http://www.viha.ca/NR/rdonlyres/697DC861-D163-4DF3-90FE-72368BCCDA69/0/fact_sheet_mri_wait_times_9feb2010.pdf

11-14 months for a MRI? That is absolutely absurd and unacceptable!! I would gladly pay the $600 and go to the private MRI clinic in Courtenay or Vancouver.

I know and I did. But many of my friends could not afford that, or at least it would significantly affect their standard of living. That's not right.

[Wild Bill]

Canada has a long history in introducing new legislation that effectively makes a product against the law but does not make the use or ownership of the product illegal, only the sale or transferability.

So the fact that grandfathering is well established from consumer goods to building codes to even weaponry, is it politically possible to draft tobacco legilsation that forbids the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after the year 2000 regardless of how old they may be and even after they are well beyond the age of majority?

Your question has more than one aspect. Living out on the Prairies allows you to consider it just a moral question. It's a bit less academic here in Ontario.

You see, tobacco is a HUGE industry here on native reserves! It's officially admitted that at least half of all cigarettes sold in Ontario are contraband, from native factories.

If the governments made tobacco illegal do you think the natives would just cheerfully close their factories?

Do you think ANY party in power in Ottawa wants anything to do with an armed conflict that would make Oka look like a tea party?

It ain't gonna happen, period and end of story!

[Shwa]

Jesus H Christ - your stock with me just rose 100 points.

Kepley, Germany, Wilkie and Moon, under the guidance of Campbell - the best teams ever in the history of the CFL. Even when Wilkinson was playing like crap he was good. Sadly, even while Ray plays good he is still crap.

If I understand what you're saying correctly then here is my answer: I signed over all my rights by national consensus rather then individual choice.

I don't want to minimize the importance of the present configuration of health care in Canada as a practical example of your views, but I am more interested in the process by which you believe you "signed over" all your rights "by national consensus" as opposed to continuing to agree to be a participatory citizen of Canada, including all that it entails. It seems to me that an individual citizen's "rights" are subsumed to the larger context of our present liberal democractric process that gains your permission by the acts of your participation in it.

In other words, you never had any "rights" - outside of those that were developed under the present processes for every citizen - and even these were never yours to give away or sign over. In fact, they were extended to you as a benefit for your continued participation as a citizen whenever your citizenship first started. So I see a troubling contradiction with the sentiment or belief that you "signed over" all your rights.

I am hoping that you might be able to explain this contradiction - a very common one I hear from self professed Libertarians - this being a 'philosophical' discussion and all.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Shwa

[Oleg Bach]

Nicotine is a drug..cocaine is a drug - alcohol is a drug - all extreme wealth that is generated by a select few comes from addictive human behaviour - to USE the populations weakness to gain power over said population - it totally unethical...look at the most powerful people in the material world - Their fortunes were garnered though addiction - opium - computerised communications (which is addictive) - booze etc...shelter food...sex....it is all about playing human weakness..A good real government is supposed to generate power and strength into the populace....but NO....we have a government that is parasitic..this is not a real government.

They might as well be selling cocaine...and taxing the hell out of it...it is like social auto-cannibalism...the system makes you sick with tobacco...takes that money and uses it to medically treat the persons injured...It is like a person setting fire in a theatre and selling bandages and pain killers out side the door of the burning building.

[The_Squid]

I know and I did. But many of my friends could not afford that, or at least it would significantly affect their standard of living. That's not right.

I agree completely. However, the answer is not privatization. THe answer is government spending priorities. There are so many subsidies and useless programs that should be cut that we could afford decent healthcare.

As well, we need to look at the Scandanavian healthcare system and emulate it. It is public, efficient and care is available quickly. Our system is indeed disfunctional.

[bloodyminded]

In other words, you never had any "rights" - outside of those that were developed under the present processes for every citizen - and even these were never yours to give away or sign over. In fact, they were extended to you as a benefit for your continued participation as a citizen whenever your citizenship first started. So I see a troubling contradiction with the sentiment or belief that you "signed over" all your rights.

I am hoping that you might be able to explain this contradiction - a very common one I hear from self professed Libertarians - this being a 'philosophical' discussion and all.

This is an excellent point.

Because in fact, the system is an expansion of rights. Some people say "health care is not a right," but they are manifestly mistaken. What they mean is that it shouldn't be, even though it is.

And I don't understand the libertarian argument, beyond the usual tax complaint. No one is stopping anyone from attaining any matter of health care they please. If they want more than the system affords or allows, or if they want it more quickly, they can always go buy it somewhere--exactly as they would under the very system that they personally propose.

As for the "why should my taxes pay for it" argument; that goes exactly this far: I personally think the war in Afghanistan is a bad idea.

The analogy is easy to decipher from this point, I hope.

Edited October 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

As for the "why should my taxes pay for it" argument; that goes exactly this far: I personally think the war in Afghanistan is a bad idea.

The analogy is easy to decipher from this point, I hope.

Ethics are a such a biatch.

[The_Squid]

I personally think the war in Afghanistan is a bad idea.

The analogy is easy to decipher from this point, I hope.

Liberterians don't believe in no taxes and no government... there are still certain areas that government has to be involved in and one of them is the military.

Military Capability

We support the maintenance of a military establishment sufficient to defend Canada against foreign aggression.

Conscription

We oppose any effort to introduce conscription for military service or for any other purpose. Requiring individuals to serve against their will, no matter what the service or how lofty the motive, is a denial of their individual rights.

http://www.libertarian.ca/english/positions-defence-foreign.html

Don't take my post as a vote of support for the Libertarian Party of Canada. I think some of their policies are whacko...

Here's a couple stupid ideas:

Land Use

The activity of land use planning is properly the responsibility and right of the owner(s) of the land. We therefore urge an end to all government interference in the planning process through such methods as expropriation, zoning laws or building codes, regional planning, or the acquisition of land or other real property with tax money. We call for the repeal of all laws regulating the use of private property.

Government & Psychiatry

We urge that no person who has not been charged or convicted of a crime shall be incarcerated or detained against her/his will, for psychiatric or any other reasons, in a mental hospital or other institution.

We further advocate: the repeal of all laws permitting the involuntary psychiatric treatment of any persons, including children; an end to all involuntary treatment of prisoners, as, for example, by such means as psycho-surgery, drug therapy, and aversion therapy; an immediate end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric or psychological research or treatment; and an end to tax-supported "mental health" centres and programs.

Immigration

We believe that all individuals have the right to choose where to live, provided they do not do so in violation of the rights of others. Therefore we advocate open immigration policies, along with the elimination of all government programs which subsidize immigration

Edited October 15, 2010 by The_Squid

[bloodyminded]

Liberterians don't believe in no taxes and no government... there are still certain areas that government has to be involved in and one of them is the military.

Yes, I understand; but unfortunately for libertarians, they do not alone get to determine all paramaters of debate, up to and including what matters are or are not contradictory and hypocritical.

My point is that they subjectively believe that they shouldn't have to pay taxes for things in which they don't agree.

While they think I should have to pay taxes for things with which I don't agree.

As for funding the military: any sincere and principled libertarian worth his salt would not sit back with dewy eyes every time Canadian boots hit foreign soil, and say they trust that the government is doing the right thing...because it's a military action.

However, that's often precisely their (profoundly servile) tendency.

(And by the way, re your link: what's with the bee in their bonnet about psychiatry and psychology? They sound like they've been listening to the Scientologists on this issue.)

Edited October 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[grainfedprairieboy]

any sincere and principled libertarian worth his salt would not sit back with dewy eyes every time Canadian boots hit foreign soil, and say they trust that the government is doing the right thing...because it's a military action.

Point of order. Unless they are themselves military then every place the government sends them is the right place no questions asked.

[bloodyminded]

Point of order. Unless they are themselves military then every place the government sends them is the right place no questions asked.

That's the conventional "wisdom," yes.

[grainfedprairieboy]

That's the conventional "wisdom," yes.

No. Conventional wisdom means that it is generally accepted as fact at the moment but open to interpretation if actually scrutinsed down the road.

It is not conventional wisdom. You go and do what you're told. Period. It is enshrined in law.

Just want to make sure we are clear on this. Sometimes folks think soldiers can decide a war is "illegal" or "immoral" or some other nonsense and have some sort of justification to pick and choose operations. That's why you get some people out east who welcome dirty filthy cowardly US army deserters.

Anyway, just a pet peeve.

Cheers

[bloodyminded]

No. Conventional wisdom means that it is generally accepted as fact at the moment but open to interpretation if actually scrutinsed down the road.

Ok...conventional piety, then. "Support the troops" as thinly-veiled code for "support political policy."

It is not conventional wisdom. You go and do what you're told. Period. It is enshrined in law.

Just want to make sure we are clear on this. Sometimes folks think soldiers can decide a war is "illegal" or "immoral" or some other nonsense and have some sort of justification to pick and choose operations. That's why you get some people out east who welcome dirty filthy cowardly US army deserters.

Anyway, just a pet peeve.

Cheers

??

I wasn't talking about those who serve, who of course have to do what they're told.

I'm talking about self-styled "libertarians" who are monumentally obedient and servile to power...so long as their taxes aren't too high.

[The_Squid]

(And by the way, re your link: what's with the bee in their bonnet about psychiatry and psychology? They sound like they've been listening to the Scientologists on this issue.)

I'm not really sure... but I suspect that this position statement stems from some sort of desire for "personal accountability" and also the justice system. I think that they would like to see people with mental disorders locked up in jail for crimes rather than a finding of "not criminally responsible".

Also a belief that no one should have their individual rights infringed for any reason. It seems they would rather have a mentally unstable person be free regardless of whether they are a danger to themselves or others. And once they do become a danger and harm someone, put them in jail.

But it does sound Scientology-esque and doesn't really work in the real world... Sometimes people really do need to be committed to mental institutions, unfortunately.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not really sure... but I suspect that this position statement stems from some sort of desire for "personal accountability" and also the justice system. I think that they would like to see people with mental disorders locked up in jail for crimes rather than a finding of "not criminally responsible".

Also a belief that no one should have their individual rights infringed for any reason. It seems they would rather have a mentally unstable person be free regardless of whether they are a danger to themselves or others. And once they do become a danger and harm someone, put them in jail.

But it does sound Scientology-esque and doesn't really work in the real world... Sometimes people really do need to be committed to mental institutions, unfortunately.

that's interesting.

As for the "not criminally responsible" aspect: that's actually vanishingly rare. A lot of people are under the misconception that this is a common decision handed down. But it's rarely even tried...much less successful.

And in some cases, no doubt it's perfectly legitimate anyway.

[The_Squid]

that's interesting.

As for the "not criminally responsible" aspect: that's actually vanishingly rare. A lot of people are under the misconception that this is a common decision handed down. But it's rarely even tried...much less successful.

And in some cases, no doubt it's perfectly legitimate anyway.

I agree... that's why I called that particular position "whacky".

They really are completely whacky and un-electable for the most part....

From their "FAQ" page:

Would you replace product regulation - for example, drugs, food, toys, machinery, aircraft, etc. ? What kind of laws would remain?

Yes. Consumers would inform themselves using free market evaluations of goods and services. Libertarians believe that the government should protect citizens and their property from murder, theft, fraud and environmental or health damage. The courts should be available for consumers to seek compensation from manufacturers that misrepresent their products. Otherwise, citizens should be free to assume their own risks concerning products, materials, substances, food and drugs.

haha... lead in toys? Well you are free to sue China then!!

Do liberterians believe in speed limits? How would we pay for roads? Tolls only?

Get rid of speed limits and they'll have my vote! haha

Edited October 15, 2010 by The_Squid

[grainfedprairieboy]

I'm talking about self-styled "libertarians" who are monumentally obedient and servile to power

Folks who think Bush orchestrated 9/11 look at the rest of us who know it was Muslim terrorists and call us "sheeple". I feel your repeated use of the word libertarian to describe anyone who does not fit with your political thinking kinda follows the same gist.