That’s what it boils down to for them: “I don’t believe in science or modern medicine, so fuck you, I’ll do what I want even if it harms you.”
I’m tempted to start a religious movement where the central tenant is that is is my GOD GIVEN RIGHT to punch antivaxxers right in the mouth whenever I feel like it. "Sorry, it’s just my sincere belief that if I don’t punch you in the mouth, I won’t get into heaven, so my rights are paramount. " WHAM!
Not for these assholes, no. There’s a simple, safe, and effective treatment, widely available with minimal effort, that will keep most of them out of the hospital, but also reduce the time spent in hospital for those unlucky few who do end up there. That is utterly unlike any other medical issue you could compare it to (alcoholism, obesity, heart disease, whatever). And in addition to this, these assholes are so numerous, they are impacting the availability of hospital resources for everyone else in the country. For the first time in my life, hospitals have just been shutting down various units because they are simply overwhelmed by COVIDiots. No previous health issues have ever been this bad.
And, sure, okay, let’s use this to set a precedent: the next time there’s a massive pandemic being prolonged by assholes who won’t take the vaccine, we’ll stick them with the bills too.
And that’s what they’ll say next time. Smoking is objectively just as stupid, isn’t it? And how do you know an unvaccinated person with COVID wouldn’t have caught it anyway? Do you pro rate the cost? Who pays for the inevitable lawsuits?
Universal means universal. What you’re proposing is a ridiculous nightmare that would probably cost us MORE, is inherently regressive (it impacts the poor way, way harder than the rich) and will absolutely, 100% lead to exactly the same argument about eating meat, drinking, smoking, not getting the flu shot, so on and so forth.
Horatius wants death panels.
That will simply confirm the talking points of the opponents of universal health coverage.
Emergency rooms are obliged to treat anyone who walks in the door. This is not the case for all doctors, but I think ethically one should use ones skills when reasonable.
I do not agree with anti-vaxxers. In general I am also skeptical of forced medical treatments and that sordid history. In a pandemic it would make more sense to require a safe and available treatment. A vaccination seems less intrusive than another lockdown. It would make less sense to require everyone in Canada to take the new malaria vaccine. Schools require a long list of vaccinations since they have proven beneficial. The general public does not always realize that these easy to prevent diseases can have very serious side effects and are often extremely resistant to available treatments.
This all needs to be weighed against the real risks and costs. A lot of countries are reintroducing restrictions and even lockdowns for the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated should never be denied hospital treatment but asking them to pay for testing if low risk is not unreasonable and stronger measures may be reasonable with commensurate risk. I am not sure melodramatic language on any side is helpful.
ICU capacity in Canada is very limited. Neurosurgery capacity in Canada is very limited too. It was even before Covid. These doctors made decisions on who to treat before Covid, which of course could cause them to need to make those decisions more often.
Given the importance Canada gives to respecting religious belief and expression in all of its manifestations, I’m almost wondering whether you could even get away with that. If they ask you whether you truly believe you have a right (or religious duty!) to punch antivaxxers, which I understand to be the test according to Canadian law, I’m even willing to believe that you could honestly answer yes. (By the way, by antivaxxers, do you mean people who are opposed to vaccines in general, or anyone who isn’t vaccinated against COVID? Do you see a moral difference between these two groups?)
But I’m with @Northern_Piper and @RickJay, universal healthcare is universal. (By the way, @Northern_Piper, I must say that I love your coldly fact-based, legal responses to these kinds of questions. The law isn’t always clear, and I also don’t always agree with it, but I’ll agree that it’s the main thing that protects us from the mob.)
Why, thank you!
Robert Bolt summarised the principle of laws nicely in A Man for All Seasons, about Sir/St Thomas More:
Anyone who is not vaccinated? No punch for them. My religion states that the might be merely stupid and gullible. Opposed in general? Not necessarily a punch for them. Maybe a severe noogie. But those who actively promote anti vaccine bullshit? “By the power of the almighty, here is a righteous punch in the mouth”. Antivax protester on the street, at a hospital or at a Remembrance Day ceremony? HUGE punch in the mouth. It is my sacred duty.
Nope, tax them, if they end up needing $80k of care, that we ALL have to pay for, then a tax of $100 per day is but a drop in that bucket. They should have some skin in the game. Put your money where your mouth is. If you’re so sure that you know better, then prepare to face small financial consequences, purely as an incentive to vax.
The 80+% who are vaxxed would much rather see resources go to help struggling businesses recover. And healthcare workers are reaching their breaking point, by all reports. It’s one thing to bear the weight of death and dying when nothing is known, but to see the fix and STILL be overwhelmed simply because some won’t take a vax, is quite possibly asking too much, from people who have already given so much.
Look, we tried reasoning with them, facts, evidence, we’re past that now. What about the financial impact of more restrictions, almost two years into this! Why should businesses, who have struggled, so hard and so long, face more hardship because of this small sector of people?
It’s not like we’re making them pay the full costs, just a tax on their poor choices. There was a time if you were hiking or heli skiing, whatever, and needed expensive rescue it was all covered, however large or costly the effort to save your ass. But, eventually, municipalities footing the bill for these events, changed policy and made it known, you WILL be paying for a chunk of the cost of your rescue. Not all of it, but enough to give you pause. I think that’s totally fair.
We are living through a remarkable time, two years into a deadly pandemic that has seen millions die world wide. This isn’t the thin edge of the wedge, and it’s disingenuous to suggest it is. This is a singular event that requires a one off response to motivate those impervious to reason, to do the right thing or be prepared to pay a small amount of the cost of their care.
It’s also a violation of the law. A total non-starter. Universal means universal.
Thanks for thinking of what I’d like to see, but no, I absolutely do not agree, and I’m vaxxed and will happily get a booster. I think this idea is absolutely bananas, actually, and would lead to people being charged for using medical services for all kinds of stuff.
Look, we tried reasoning with smokers, facts, evidence, we’re past that now.
I mean, how many Canadians have died of smoking related illnesses? Two million? Five? It kills as many people every single year as COVID-19 has in two years, and has done so for longer than either of us has been alive.
Nm…
Nm…
Thank you for mentioning this—I don’t know why it hasn’t occurred to me before as a more general analogy for the whole anti-vax thing. Almost every smoker now alive had to make the choice to take up a habit that was contrary to all medical advice frankly common sense, and while death from lung disease isn’t inevitable, there are also more minor health issues, and of course expense etc. And yet, as you note, they smoke by the millions.
I don’t know why, but that’s really eye-opening for me in understanding that the anti-vax movement isn’t just a new group of recalcitrants, but that a significant fraction of humanity will definitely choose to harm themselves in favour of a perceived benefit, whether ephemeral or even fictional.
Sigh.
Yes, let’s prioritise economic recovery over the lives of fellow Canadians.
Better a person dies than a business fails, correct?
I see where you’re coming from…
But there is a lot of frustration about the people who are prioritizing their own stupidity and freedom to spread disease over the lives of fellow Canadians. These people are not just harming themselves with their stupidity. They are KILLING OTHERS.
There comes a point when a small minority of people having a sincere (stupid) belief that it’s OK to kill your fellow citizens cannot simply be accepted with a shrug.
Although our knowledge of smoking and addiction continues to increase, calling smoking “a choice” undermines the role of advertising, misinformation, social cues, addiction and difficulties quitting. It takes the average smoker eleven times to quit cigarettes and is far from easy. I am not saying that there is no comparison to those who oppose vaccines; there are many things in common including identity, contrarianism and denial. But vaccines are rarely addictive and this is not a trivial point.
Just for clarity, when I said “the choice to take up [the] habit,” I meant only the decision to START smoking, not the reasons people continue once they’ve started. Maybe not advertising, but misinformation and social cues are precisely the parallels I find useful in this analogy.
It should also be noted that smoking was also enormously reduced in Canada. And a BIG piece of that was taxes on cigarettes. Education, science, medical advice only go so far. However $12 for a pack cigarettes definitely helped!
Yes, but at no time were people charged for treatment in hospitals because they had chosen to smoke.
I could be wrong here, but I think that certain medical procedures (transplants) are denied to folks who smoke and will not quit? Or to alcoholics who will not stop drinking?
That seems even harsher than having someone pay a portion for treatment if they willfully disregard a vaccine.
When I broke my foot, I was asked about smoking history. I thought it was a strange question and said so, but the doctor explained that smoking has an effect on the capillaries such that my particular injury would heal without surgery in a nonsmoker (it did), but would require surgery in a smoker. In that case, I was “denied” surgery that a smoker would have gotten, but for entirely medical reasons.
I would imagine there are related and entirely medical reasons for the transplants; it needn’t be a punitive measure. I don’t know about alcoholics.
I haven’t said, but I’m in agreement with those who state that universal healthcare must be universal, even for people whose behaviours raise costs for the rest of us. The only reason I said about smoking in the first place is because it was illuminating as to the carrots and sticks that will be needed from a public health / communications perspective, not the medical treatment side.