|
I wish I was a mod so I could move the whole derail and dump it in Auspol.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:noooooooo thread turn left I apologize
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Anyone who spends more than a couple hundred bucks on a loving watch needs to go up against the wall. With their nose against the wall, for 15 min while they think about why they've been sent there and can come back if they apologize and tell society what they did was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Lol, if that maple leaf hides the Little PM then he's hung like a fruit bat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Improved mental health, better work life balance and shorter commutes will go a long way towards better health among the populace. It's way easy to let yourself go when you're always loving mentally exhausted and want nothing more than to curl up on the couch watch a movie trying to escape the reality of your bullshit existence for the few precious hours you have to yourself. When I was a kid my Dad used to pick me up from daycare every Friday and take me to the Royal Ontario Museum, which was free. That policy got shitcanned under Mike Harris and the admission price went up to something ridiculous like $20 (I think a couple years ago they started to reduce the price somewhat from it's peak but it's still pretty steep). It's honestly kind of surreal to go back not that far into the past and find a genuine (albeit imperfectly implemented) social commitment to providing affordable access to entertainment (not to mention high culture) to a wide swath of the population. Nowadays it's become widely accepted that "the market" should determine access to everything, which in practice means that if you're poor your idea of a good time can easily end up being a joint, a McDonalds meal and some illegally downloaded television. Going out (or even living in a community where "going out" to enjoy art, culture, night life, decent food, interesting spectacles, etc.) is increasingly out of reach for a lot of people, who end up living depressing and socially atmoized lives that revolve around the internet, television, work and a small circle of personal acquaintances. Personally I think a lot of our other problems as a society come in part from the way that politics, economics and urban planning have all too often demolished pre-existing social communities and then seemingly salted the earth so that nothing else can grow. It's no wonder to me GamerGate idiots think their hobby is a "culture" (indeed a lot of internet geek communities seem to be little more than simulated ethnicities for neckbeads and shut ins) worth viciously defending when they've got so few social prospects. Combine this tendency toward the unravelling of communitarian feelings (and the economic destruction of the conditions that lend themselves toward new forms of sociability outside the internet) with the increasing stressfulness of modern life and I think you create a very dangerous situation. Perhaps I'm glamorizing the past here too much but honestly the direction our culture is moving in seems totally incompatible with any kind of popular self rule, let alone individual self control. Our entire economy and society is built around buying and selling poo poo and the best consumers are insecure and filled with self loathing. Unfortunately the kind of people who are good consumers aren't very good citizens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
*puffs joint, passes to the left*
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Lol, if that maple leaf hides the Little PM then he's hung like a fruit bat. It's fully erect and pointing right at you, as indicated by the shadow that isn't hidden by the leaf.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Helsing posted:*puffs joint, passes to the left* I'd hit it if I heard that speech in person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
I doubt there are any SJWs that have ever heard of the laws of thermodynamics since that's all just the domain of STEMlords
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Eej posted:It's fully erect and pointing right at you, as indicated by the shadow that isn't hidden by the leaf. drat, beat me to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Eej posted:It's fully erect and pointing right at you, as indicated by the shadow that isn't hidden by the leaf. Acceptable response!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Helsing posted:When I was a kid... Agreed. We've bought into the whole "there's no such thing as society" ideology. That free museum isn't really free, it's being ripped out of tax payers pockets. Don't individuals know what they want to spend their recreational or cultural money on better than the government?? Individuals always know best, so cancel all government services, cut all cultural funding, and let people decide on their own. If a museum can't survive charging market prices than the people have spoken and we don't want museums. There's a strong idea that government or anyone even admitting there's such a thing as a "greater good" or "social goods" is "social engineering" or even communism. Taxation is government thinking it knows how to spend money better than the individual, and the individual is always right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
a primate posted:I could have sworn we had a forum for this... They'd agree with Brannock. Bunny - I am totally down for getting you that beer I said I'd buy if the Libs won a majority. Maybe after going for a run  Rona Ambrose as interim leader is interesting if only because of the leaders of the opposition parties being invited to go to the climate talks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Helsing posted:When I was a kid my Dad used to pick me up from daycare every Friday and take me to the Royal Ontario Museum, which was free. That policy got shitcanned under Mike Harris and the admission price went up to something ridiculous like $20 (I think a couple years ago they started to reduce the price somewhat from it's peak but it's still pretty steep). While I agree with all of this, and I do see it as a problem, it doesn't change my original point, which is that I find it extremely hypocritical to have an obese woman telling me I can't smoke menthol cigarettes if I want to, and that I have to pay extra for smokes and booze. I'm not saying that it's easy to lose weight, or even that it's a moral imperative to try and lose weight. Being overweight and/or choosing not to do exercise is amoral in my view, as is the consumption of substances like alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, heroin, etc. I just find it galling that my vice gets attacked before hers, and, if I'm being honest, the Ministry of Health both can and should do more to combat obesity, because as has been discussed, it's a society-wide problem and it's going to be very ineffective to try solving it at the individual level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Considering our entire species loving knows better but cant help themselves when it comes to most of these things I don't see having a fat person as health minister as being in any way hypocritical as long as that fat person isn't one of those fat acceptance nutcases that sees nothing wrong with their physical state. You're just mad because no matter how progressive you may seem to have gotten at the core your soul has FYGM written on it and you get cranky as gently caress and try to find fault in anyone who tries to get between you and what you want for yourself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Considering our entire species loving knows better but cant help themselves when it comes to most of these things I don't see having a fat person as health minister as being in any way hypocritical as long as that fat person isn't one of those fat acceptance nutcases that sees nothing wrong with their physical state. Then why was banning menthols and raising taxes on cigarettes done before taking substantive action on the societal problem of obesity, particularly childhood obesity? In our province (and probably in the whole country by now) we cannot see a pack of cigarettes on the shelf, yet fast food, junk food, soda, etc. can all be advertised to and purchased by children, and you can get a 2L bottle of soda for less than a 355mL can of beer. I proffer to you that perhaps that's a much bigger issue than whether or not cigarettes are allowed to taste like a mint plant and a log of poo poo hosed each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Destroy car culture, massive investment in bike and pedestrian infrastructure, You can't loving help yourself can you?  It's not strictly an intake problem anyways: see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26383959 Also our caloric intake has gone up 10-14% because as a society we have become insanely wealthy over that time. Like being able to feed every person in the country levels of wealthy. Like fruit options that were seasonal 20 years ago are staples now, and food items that were unobtainable are cheap now. Post-war scarcity and the great depression are not that far behind us. In conclusion, if you've been listening to the rhetoric about the "one advantage Canada has had since PET" the kind of finance minister we've gotten is no surprise at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:They'd agree with Brannock. Sure, sooner or later we will do that. Also, speaking of RonaFaith based Caucus anyone
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
PT: What prevents an obese woman from enacting policy which effectively prevents obesity, say by forbidding the distribution of unhealthy food? Hint: it has nothing to do with her obesity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
sliderule posted:PT: What prevents an obese woman from enacting policy which effectively prevents obesity, say by forbidding the distribution of unhealthy food? Nothing? That's why I find it hypocritical and insulting that she hasn't taken action on it, while moving to restrict and further tax my vices right away. At least when Klein increased sin taxes, you knew it was hitting him as hard as anyone! PT6A fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Sure, sooner or later we will do that. A day of unprecedented access to Trudeau followed by the interim CPC leader leaving after three questions and reporters being drowned out by chanting caucus members. Good God, it's good to be free of those loving lunatics. Edit: Rona Ambrose - just not ready. Nice hair though. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Nothing? That's why I find it hypocritical and insulting that she hasn't taken action on it, while moving to restrict and further tax my vices right away. At least when Klein increased sin taxes, you knew it was hitting him as hard as anyone! You're telling me that you approve of a law which restricted the sale of food products?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Hahaha you smoke menthol cigarettes What kind of trucknutting bulldogger are you
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Nothing? That's why I find it hypocritical and insulting that she hasn't taken action on it, while moving to restrict and further tax my vices right away. At least when Klein increased sin taxes, you knew it was hitting him as hard as anyone! The two aren't equivalent In at least three ways. In the first place one has a pre existing tax system in place where you can just tweak the rates, rather than having to build a new one. Two, one is a pure hobby/luxury and the other is making poor choices when choosing a necessity. And third, one is a tax on an entire product while the other should be a more nuanced tax on unhealthy food, perhaps taking into account ingredients etc. Edit: he says menthol, but we all know it was cherry flavoured cigarillos he was unhappy with losing! 
Gorau fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:While I agree with all of this, and I do see it as a problem, it doesn't change my original point, which is that I find it extremely hypocritical to have an obese woman telling me I can't smoke menthol cigarettes if I want to, and that I have to pay extra for smokes and booze. I'm not saying that it's easy to lose weight, or even that it's a moral imperative to try and lose weight. Being overweight and/or choosing not to do exercise is amoral in my view, as is the consumption of substances like alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, heroin, etc. I just find it galling that my vice gets attacked before hers, and, if I'm being honest, the Ministry of Health both can and should do more to combat obesity, because as has been discussed, it's a society-wide problem and it's going to be very ineffective to try solving it at the individual level. As has already been pointed out long term medical studies seem to indicate that something like 97%-98% of obese individuals don't return to a healthy weight, or if they do then they very quickly end up being obese again. By contrast cigarettes, supposedly one of the most addictive legally available substances in our society, have a relapse rate of something like 4% after about two years. The point here being that it's totally spurious to cite her weight as hypocrisy when you don't know what her personal experiences have actually been. She may, for all you know, have struggled to reduce her weight, in which case I don't see calling her a hypocrite as being particularly fair. As for the choice of taxing cigarettes as opposed to junk food, there's a couple justifications for that. For one I have never heard of a family resorting to cigarettes as a substitute for actual food. I have, however, heard of many parents relying on junk food not just because it's cheap (and makes your angry pissy screaming child happy) but also because it's fast and time is a very scarce resource for a lot of poor parents. So I'd argue that cigarettes are a better candidate for taxing than any kind of food, at least in the short term (that having been said I agree that stuff like banning trans fats should be on the agenda). The other issue, however, is strategic. The NDP in Alberta has to pick which battles they fight. A lot of the heavy lifting has already been done when it comes to convincing the voting populace that it's acceptable to tax cigarettes. By contrast there's a lot less acceptance of the need to tax or regulate junk food. So targetting cigarettes to raise revenue instead of junkfood is probably just following the path of least resistance so that they can raise additional revenue to pay for their spending promises. While it's not ideal that this is how policy gets made it has nothing to do with the Alberta NDP or Sarah Hoffman, it's got everything to do with the way the political sausage gets made, and other parties don't act any differently. The real issue here may be that you're just not that sympathetic to the goals of the NDP: if you were more concerned about ensuring the NDP fulfill it's spending promises then you might be more likely to accept this tax as a necessary evil. I suspect your general (and seemingly reflexive) dislike of the NDP is colouring your opinion of their behavior. This is, not coincidentally, why I'm always making long spergy posts about the importance of organized vs. disorganized interests in politics. The groups that get together and collectively push for or against policies tend to have outsizesd influence and the push-and-pull of competitive organized interests is a better way to explain (or critique) policy outcomes than the personal morality of individual government ministers. PT6A posted:Nothing? That's why I find it hypocritical and insulting that she hasn't taken action on it, while moving to restrict and further tax my vices right away. At least when Klein increased sin taxes, you knew it was hitting him as hard as anyone! This isn't really true because of what economists call the marginal utility of money. A price increases hits you very differently when your income is 100,000 a year than it does when your income is 20,000 a year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Helsing posted:When I was a kid my Dad used to pick me up from daycare every Friday and take me to the Royal Ontario Museum, which was free. That policy got shitcanned under Mike Harris and the admission price went up to something ridiculous like $20 (I think a couple years ago they started to reduce the price somewhat from it's peak but it's still pretty steep). When the time comes you can come live with me on my commune
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Gorau posted:The two aren't equivalent In at least three ways. In the first place one has a pre existing tax system in place where you can just tweak the rates, rather than having to build a new one. Two, one is a pure hobby/luxury and the other is making poor choices when choosing a necessity. And third, one is a tax on an entire product while the other should be a more nuanced tax on unhealthy food, perhaps taking into account ingredients etc. Junk food is totally a luxury, though. No one needs potato chips ever. No one needs Coca-Cola. No one needs Cheetos. They are every bit as superfluous as liquor and cigarettes. Things like frozen pizza are a bit harder to classify, since they can be part of a healthy diet if you don't eat them constantly. quote:Edit: he says menthol, but we all know it was cherry flavoured cigarillos he was unhappy with losing! Actually, I find the very idea of any kind of flavoured tobacco disgusting, but I don't think it's the government's place to tell people they can't have it, when there are more significant issues to deal with. Like the factors that lead to obesity. Helsing posted:As for the choice of taxing cigarettes as opposed to junk food, there's a couple justifications for that. For one I have never heard of a family resorting to cigarettes as a substitute for actual food. I have, however, heard of many parents relying on junk food not just because it's cheap (and makes your angry pissy screaming child happy) but also because it's fast and time is a very scarce resource for a lot of poor parents. You know what else keeps angry pissy children (well, teenagers) happy? Liquor and smokes. But we don't let you give your minor child one of those under and circumstances, and I think you'd have a few people look askew at you if you said, "oh yeah, I just let Aiden have a few beers whenever he's in a bad mood, or he'll just complain to no end!" even if it's technically legal. I think you're very effectively making my point for me: we've already done great strides to combat the public health risk of alcohol and tobacco. Now, we're facing an obesity crisis, and it's time to roll on it instead of coming up with excuses. quote:The other issue, however, is strategic. The NDP in Alberta has to pick which battles they fight. A lot of the heavy lifting has already been done when it comes to convincing the voting populace that it's acceptable to tax cigarettes. By contrast there's a lot less acceptance of the need to tax or regulate junk food. This is an incredibly important issue to fight for, though! Obesity will be the major public health crisis of our time, and the Alberta government is choosing to eke another few cents per cigarette out of smokers instead of showing real leadership and tackling this issue. quote:This isn't really true because of what economists call the marginal utility of money. A price increases hits you very differently when your income is 100,000 a year than it does when your income is 20,000 a year. Well, yes, this is true, and it's another reason why sin taxes are regressive and lovely. He was still paying them, though; that's what I meant by him being hit equally by the sin tax. The Honourable Hoffman is not paying sin taxes on her vice, because there are no sin taxes on her vice. PT6A fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
sliderule posted:You're telling me that you approve of a law which restricted the sale of food products? To minors? Abso-loving-lutely! It's absurd that I could have got a $100 fine for being in possession of tobacco under the age of 18, yet there was no problem with the high school cafeteria selling off-brand McRibs and fries with few, if any, options for healthy alternatives. I'm not saying it needs to be restricted in exactly the same way that tobacco and alcohol are, but there is certainly room for regulation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Food is a necessity. Societal factors make it such that unhealthy food is the cheapest and easiest to get. We have alternatives to curbing the amount of junk food people eat, such as school lunch programs that serve real, healthy food.That should be the priority. Not imposing a tax on the poor. There's no other way to curb cigarettes and drinking other than to say, "Don't do it!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Normy posted:Food is a necessity. Societal factors make it such that unhealthy food is the cheapest and easiest to get. We have alternatives to curbing the amount of junk food people eat, such as school lunch programs that serve real, healthy food.That should be the priority. Not imposing a tax on the poor. I agree! I think sin taxes are a horrible and regressive tax, and I don't think we ought to be expanding them or creating new ones. The problem, however, is that one category of sin taxes is already punitive and continues to grow pretty much every time a new budget comes down, while another remains conspicuously absent. I'm mainly just sick of the absurd double-standard. I'm going to make some delicious fried chicken right now (at least, I hope it's delicious). Counting the marinading and cleanup time involved, I think it will have taken me longer to prepare than a simple, healthy stirfry. I'm making it because it tastes good and I want fried chicken, not because it's easier or faster than the alternatives, just like if I have a beer later on, it's because I would like to have a beer, not because it's the optimal choice for hydration. I can admit these things. Further, I can acknowledge that my choice to have fried chicken and beer is not good for my health! But that's okay, because we live in a free society, and I take responsibility for my choice to eat fried chicken and drink beer. I disagree with your assertion that there's no other way to discourage alcohol and tobacco use. Our public health campaigns on those issues have been very effective, and we should probably offer greater subsidies for addiction treatment programs and nicotine replacement programs. As it is, sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco often hit the most vulnerable in our society the hardest, but we put up with it because it's the only "acceptable" way to raise taxes. It's bullshit. PT6A fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I agree! I think sin taxes are a horrible and regressive tax, and I don't think we ought to be expanding them or creating new ones. The problem, however, is that one category of sin taxes is already punitive and continues to grow pretty much every time a new budget comes down, while another remains conspicuously absent. I'm mainly just sick of the absurd double-standard. I'm going to make some delicious fried chicken right now (at least, I hope it's delicious). Counting the marinading and cleanup time involved, I think it will have taken me longer to prepare than a simple, healthy stirfry. I'm making it because it tastes good and I want fried chicken, not because it's easier or faster than the alternatives, just like if I have a beer later on, it's because I would like to have a beer, not because it's the optimal choice for hydration. I can admit these things. Further, I can acknowledge that my choice to have fried chicken and beer is not good for my health! But that's okay, because we live in a free society, and I take responsibility for my choice to eat fried chicken and drink beer. I agree with you as well. Sin taxes are not ideal. There are plenty of factors, thought, that make a sin tax on tobacco and alcohol more justifiable and easier to implement than a tax on junk food. Yes you can spend a lot of time making some delicious unhealthy meal, but a single mom might have to settle for cooking up another batch of KD for the kids.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
While we are on this food derail, let me point out that obesity will become a major healthcare cost for our Country in the years ahead, and we should actually start enacting policies or programs to save ourselves. It will bankrupt us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:I think possibly the dumbest complaint I've heard about the new Cabinet is "you say this cabinet looks like Canada? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE BLACK PEOPLE? AND LATINOS?!" How can this be the dumbest complaint if there's a shred of truth to it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
jm20 posted:While we are on this food derail, let me point out that obesity will become a major healthcare cost for our Country in the years ahead, and we should actually start enacting policies or programs to save ourselves. It will bankrupt us. Indeed. Both levels of government should focus on obesity prevention measures as a matter of public health.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
jm20 posted:While we are on this food derail, let me point out that obesity will become a major healthcare cost for our Country in the years ahead, and we should actually start enacting policies or programs to save ourselves. It will bankrupt us. Obesity (along with smoking and alcohol) actually lower healthcare costs because people die sooner. The cost of treating obesity-related diseases is less than the cost of ongoing healthcare and treating non-obesity diseases that will come up and eventually kill people in those extra years they live.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You know what else keeps angry pissy children (well, teenagers) happy? Liquor and smokes. But we don't let you give your minor child one of those under and circumstances, and I think you'd have a few people look askew at you if you said, "oh yeah, I just let Aiden have a few beers whenever he's in a bad mood, or he'll just complain to no end!" even if it's technically legal. I think you're very effectively making my point for me: we've already done great strides to combat the public health risk of alcohol and tobacco. Now, we're facing an obesity crisis, and it's time to roll on it instead of coming up with excuses. You're comparing apples and oranges here. It kind of makes me think you just don't have much knowledge of the dilemmas that low income parents face or that you're just so entirely unsympathetic to them that you don't actually care. quote:This is an incredibly important issue to fight for, though! Obesity will be the major public health crisis of our time, and the Alberta government is choosing to eke another few cents per cigarette out of smokers instead of showing real leadership and tackling this issue. Well yes, instead of starting a controversial fight about junk food they'd rather start a controversial fight over deficit financed infrastructure spending. Given the economic situation in Alberta following decades of Tory misrule I think that's a reasonable choice to make. Developing better public health policies to deal with obesity is a worthy goal as well but for all kinds of contextual reasons the need to deal with austerity and to get Alberta's fiscal house into order without laying off shitloads of public servants is a much more pressing issue. jm20 posted:While we are on this food derail, let me point out that obesity will become a major healthcare cost for our Country in the years ahead, and we should actually start enacting policies or programs to save ourselves. It will bankrupt us. I agree entirely but I also don't think that "why aren't you fighting obesity!" is a particularly compelling argument against taxing cigarettes. It's a fight worth having but there's the matter of where you spend your limited political capital. I'd be thrilled to see an obesity fighting program but the lack of a decent public health strategy on obesity is immaterial when it comes to discussing whether we should be taxing alcohol and cigarettes and it really has nothing to do with the weight of the Health Minister, which is what kicked off this entire discussion. I mean personally I wish we could move entirely away from the (misconception) that government's are financed through taxation (they aren't, much in the way that bank loans don't actually come from people's savings) but in the context of a government fighting strong political headwinds to reverse a highly damaging myth about government austerity I think I'm willing to cut the Alberta NDP some slack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Twiin posted:Obesity (along with smoking and alcohol) actually lower healthcare costs because people die sooner. The cost of treating obesity-related diseases is less than the cost of ongoing healthcare and treating non-obesity diseases that will come up and eventually kill people in those extra years they live. I find this hard to believe but I'm open to being convinced. A quick search around Google seems to point the opposite. Do you have a source?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
M.McFly posted:I find this hard to believe but I'm open to being convinced. A quick search around Google seems to point the opposite. Do you have a source? Yeah I've heard both. Also with medical technology always advancing and obesity rapidly increasing plus the differences in countries health care and pension systems and funding it's a really tricky question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
M.McFly posted:I find this hard to believe but I'm open to being convinced. A quick search around Google seems to point the opposite. Do you have a source? I've heard the claim before and find it plausible because some cancer treatments are really expensive, but even if it were true that dying early of heart failure reduces healthcare spending,it's a little myopic to suggest that that's a net benefit to society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 02:40
|
|