Quote:
Originally Posted by goaliegirl
How was my post not relevant to the discussion? If the govt of Alberta wants to go after tobacco companies to offset the cost of medical care obtained by smokers, don't you think there should be proof that smokers cost the health system more than a regular person?
|
Why does it have to be more? I mean, I could go into a lengthy deconstruction of that link and follow what you seem to be saying to some ridiculous conclusions. But if something can be so clearly linked to illness, why shouldn't some of the associated costs of treating that illness be pursued along this avenue along with other means at the government's disposal?
Your reality seems to suggest the costs must be more (however you choose to define those costs) than average or typical for this to be worthwhile. My reality suggests linkage is more significant.