I’d support raw milk being legal for consumers to purchase so long as the manufacturers of said raw milk could be held to account for harm caused to a consumer who purchased it under the belief that it was safe — likely, this would also mean that, if it isn’t safe, the product containing raw milk must otherwise display explicit warnings. I think a person should be allowed to take take their own risks.
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
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.
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!
And parents are held responsible if they give it to kids
Imo, only if it can be proven that the parent is being willfully negligent regarding the safety the child.
Also, if a product that claimed to be safe, but actually wasn’t, was purchased and given to the child, then this responsibility should fall on the producer only.
I’d support raw milk being legal for consumers to purchase so long as the manufacturers of said raw milk could be held to account for harm caused to a consumer who purchased it under the belief that it was safe — likely, this would also mean that, if it isn’t safe, the product containing raw milk must otherwise display explicit warnings. I think a person should be allowed to take take their own risks.
And parents are held responsible if they give it to kids
Insurance should also not need to cover sickness caused by it
Insurance should cover everyone for everything and should remain affordable for all.
Not if you’re drinking raw milk
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
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
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.
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!
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?
Look up. That’s why I said parents should be held responsible for serving it to kids
Imo, only if it can be proven that the parent is being willfully negligent regarding the safety the child.
Also, if a product that claimed to be safe, but actually wasn’t, was purchased and given to the child, then this responsibility should fall on the producer only.