Ideologically, I'm with you. But you can't dismiss the practicality of it all.

When it comes to smokers for example, people have realized that adding a tax to cigarettes and other tabaco products could make it practical that people get subsidized treatment of smoking induced medical issues.

So the increase in medical cost and strain to the system is offset by a tax. On top of that, there are also restrictions of where you can smoke/drink, how you can advertise for it, etc., making the prospect of doing so less enticing. And the tax act as a disincentive as well.

This also applies to alcohol.

In other cases, substances have been outright banned, and I don't mean just narcotics, but also things like chemicals in foods, products, construction materials, etc.

Some people argue the same in order to tax sugar and fast food (and I can't remember if there are any such tax in Canada yet or not, but some cities in the US have it).

Similarly here, the institutions are faced with a real practical challenge. The cost and strain to the Canadian healthcare system of COVID as a whole is huge, and of that cost and strain, the majority is now from unvaccinated.

You can ideologically agree they all should be covered, but it's now hurting other medical care, and the cost is just getting larger and larger.

That's where, similar to tobacco and alcohol taxes, options for COVID are being explored.

That's why people have been talking about a tax for the unvaccinated. And maybe that's a better way then mandates, but in any case, I don't think it is useful to just dismiss the practical cost/strain of the unvaccinated right now, because that's what is motivating the legislature and other civil servant to pursue mandates.

So the topic needs to be addressed, if you want to convince people mandates aren't the way to go, you need to address their concern with why they want mandates in the first place, and that's the strain/cost to the healthcare system primarily.

These are all good points but unfortunately I can't decide where the state spends their money. It should be spent on educating people instead of trying to heal them after they get sick. The health insurance system should be revamped and the cost of healthcare should be lower too. I just can't do much about these issues right now.

All I'm saying is that we can't just say "well, then don't ask me to pay for your medical bills" to a human being just because they are being ignorant, negligent, or plain assholes, whether or not they pay a tax to compensate their choices.

> not anti-vaxxer nor oppose vax mandates

FYI opposing the state forcing you to be vaccinated is included in the definition of “anti-vaxxer”[0].

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer

A few with your overall point, though it's worth noting that smokers pay a lot of tax to help offset their costs. A $15 pack of cigarettes in Ontario has about $9 of tax included in the price.

They are getting educated. Near constantly. At what point does not getting a vaccine become negligence?

Unfortunately there are forces deliberately spreading vaccine FUD, so it's not solely negligence to still be unvaccinated.

> At what point does not getting a vaccine become negligence?

I don't know and I don't care as I said in my previous comment. When does not quitting smoking become negligence?

Negligence is bad, but they don't deserve to die if they can't afford health care.

I live in a country with free health care. No one is going broke from health costs here. However, people not getting the vaccine are filling up hospital beds which is preventing other people from getting care they need for other things. Therefore, not getting your vaccine is negligent.