@@user-km2bz8iy5o so is that for everything then? Like medication, healthcare etc. Evidence supports cost of preventing asthma attacks to treating it? Can you show me otherwise?
Good for you. Like many things in life that benefit you, pay for it yourself. You want me to buy you a new induction stove too? A new treadmill? How about some fresh fruits and vegies? Why is the mere benefit to a person's health sufficient grounds to force *somebody else* to pay for it? Why?
@@user-km2bz8iy5o Keeping Asthmatics out of hosptial benefits everyone - reduces cost to tax payers, reduces loss of productivity eg: sick days. Good populaition health is good for everyone and the economy
@@tonimedlen5371 A lot of things can fall into the category of "possibly keeping people out of hospital". The list is endless. An easy way of reducing cost of hospitalization to taxpayers right to zero is not to subsidise hosptialization by taxpayers at all. Wheter to subsidise hospitalisation and the amount or % of subsidisation is a public choice not an inevitability. Re lost income due to sick days, that benefit, if any, would almost all accrue to the individual. If the argument is that due to income taxes, the taxpayer accrues some benefit too, sure. But so can many other goods and services. Where do you draw the line? Maybe a dishwasher helps me save time to spend more time at work. Can that be subsidised too? What I haven't yet heard is a coherent and consistent principle or rule for deciding which of those warrant being paid for by taxpayers and which should be paid by the individual receiving the benefit.
Thank you for the educational video.
Why aren't purifiers subsidised for those with asthma and other comorbidities considering the evidence they help?
If it benefits you and mostly you, pay for it yourself. Not everything in life should be funded by someone else's money (that's what tax dollars are)
@@user-km2bz8iy5o so is that for everything then? Like medication, healthcare etc. Evidence supports cost of preventing asthma attacks to treating it? Can you show me otherwise?
Good for you. Like many things in life that benefit you, pay for it yourself. You want me to buy you a new induction stove too? A new treadmill? How about some fresh fruits and vegies?
Why is the mere benefit to a person's health sufficient grounds to force *somebody else* to pay for it? Why?
@@user-km2bz8iy5o Keeping Asthmatics out of hosptial benefits everyone - reduces cost to tax payers, reduces loss of productivity eg: sick days. Good populaition health is good for everyone and the economy
@@tonimedlen5371 A lot of things can fall into the category of "possibly keeping people out of hospital". The list is endless.
An easy way of reducing cost of hospitalization to taxpayers right to zero is not to subsidise hosptialization by taxpayers at all. Wheter to subsidise hospitalisation and the amount or % of subsidisation is a public choice not an inevitability.
Re lost income due to sick days, that benefit, if any, would almost all accrue to the individual.
If the argument is that due to income taxes, the taxpayer accrues some benefit too, sure. But so can many other goods and services. Where do you draw the line? Maybe a dishwasher helps me save time to spend more time at work. Can that be subsidised too?
What I haven't yet heard is a coherent and consistent principle or rule for deciding which of those warrant being paid for by taxpayers and which should be paid by the individual receiving the benefit.
Quite a search what truely helps for Woodfire tiny particle in air in the neighbourhood.