Quote:
Originally posted by wobblywoo
So would your feeling change on this if a family member was an alcoholic, or got so low they attempted to take their own life?....I do hope not but never say never! Life can have cruel twists and turns, things are not so black and white.
|
Please stay on topic...
This is about tax money going towards complete strangers with self inflicted conditions. Not "would you help your mum out if she got lung cancer or kidney failure?" or whatever you're trying to say.
Of course I would be more than willing to contribute my own money towards a family member. I wouldn't expect complete strangers to have to pay for my family member if that family member required money for problems caused by themselves.
Quote:
Originally posted by spacebandit
Suppose you play a sport, one that I don't like, and you get injured - should my money help pay for your medical treatment ?
You are involved in a car crash, the police report says YOU were at fault - should my taxpayer money go toward paying for your medical treatment and for those YOU injured ?
The choice of sport is yours - why should I pay ?
Your choices caused an accident - why should I pay ?
|
Choosing a sport to play doesn't come with guaranteed health implications, and even if it did, it's not an addictive substance so I could give it up in an instant. Nobody gets involved in football for example, knowing full well they'll get addicted and end up with a broken leg from playing too much.
The choice was to play an innocent game of football, not abuse a substance that affects your health. So that injury is just as random an occurance as me tripping over in the street and cutting my leg open, it would be a complete accident and no fault of my own.
That's like saying "you chose to walk down a dark street, knowing there's a possibility you might not be safe but will most likely be ok, but you were stabbed. Should I have to pay for your treatment because YOU chose to walk down that street?"
Just because I chose the street, doesn't mean I had it coming.
Whereas choosing to smoke, something that everyone is aware causes you direct harm, is choosing something you know will affect you and carrying on regardless.
You're basically comparing ACCIDENTS in sports, to CHOOSING health diminishing substances...and trying to link them by saying I CHOSE the sport which lead to the accident. It would only work as a comparison if I CHOSE for the accident to happen, which would make it a non accident and transform it into my fault, which would make me undeserving of tax payers money in my eyes.
Same with the wreckless driving, if it's my fault then I don't deserve tax payers money for my irresponsibility and lack of thought for other drivers on the road. Just the same as people who choose to sit around being lazy, whilst claiming job seekers allowance are highly frowned upon.