• auzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    9 hours ago

    And parents are held responsible if they give it to kids

    Insurance should also not need to cover sickness caused by it

    • Oneser@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Insurance should cover everyone for everything and should remain affordable for all.

        • Ginny [they/she]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I also think insurance shouldn’t cover cancer treatment for smokers. Or diabetes treatment for overweight people. Or broken bones for skiers. Or literally anything for anyone who has ever done anything bad for them. /s

          • auzy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            Why shouldn’t they be able to sue cigarette companies or companies releasing unsafe products?

            Why should my insurance be higher whilst cigarette companies are benefiting off their shit marketing

            • Ginny [they/she]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              One reason why people have historically had trouble suing tobacco companies is that non-smokers also get lung cancer. While we can say for sure that smoking makes it more likely you will get lung cancer, it’s generally impossible to say any one person’s lung cancer was caused by smoking. This is in contrast to say, someone who injures themselves climbing, where it is definitely 100% on them.

              The real answer of course is that you’re paying for it either way. Insured people pay absurdly over the odds to offset the amount of money lost on people who accrue medical debt and can’t afford to pay it off.

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          What is it with this americans aversion for raw milk, it’s not like you’ll fall down dead if you drink it.

          Do you also burn your salmon and cook your meat?

          In france there are lots of cheese (no really?) and many are forbidden for import to the USA because of stuff like raw milk. Guess that’s why we have the watch coming by getting all the dead babies every tuesday.

          Maybe I’m missing something, please do enlighten me!

        • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 hours ago

          What if a child were given raw milk by their parents? Should a child be forced to pay for their parents’ decisions, potentially with their life?

          • auzy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Look up. That’s why I said parents should be held responsible for serving it to kids