this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
283 points (98.6% liked)

Canada

7204 readers
368 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
283
Canada passes bill to cover birth control and diabetes drugs (www.bbc.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Canada's parliament has passed a bill that that will cover the full cost of contraception and diabetes drugs for Canadians.

The Liberal government said it is the initial phase of a plan that would expand to become a publicly funded national pharmacare programme.

But two provinces - Alberta and Quebec - have indicated they may opt-out of the programme, accusing Ottawa of interfering in provincial matters.

Opposition Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, whose party is ahead in national polls by a wide margin, does not support the legislation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Look, we have to prioritize treatment, since our healthcare system is extremely stretched at the moment.

We are paying for a lot of lifestyle related illnesses to continue without any patient effort to correct it.

When you walk in with high blood pressure, do you think they don't mention reducing your weight, sodium, and cholesterol? Some people follow that advice, some don't.

Most don't, which is a problem when you have people who need care through no fault of their own.

Obesity is Canada is something like 1/3. We're talking about increases in just about every health problem under the sun.

Now, we can continue as we are, prolonging poor health and managing the results of poor lifestyle.

Or, we can find ways to motivate patients to get better without expensive and ongoing treatments.

Will this work for everyone? No, because not every health problem is lifestyle related. But enough of it is, and we can unburden our doctors by putting responsibility back into patient's hands.

We would benefit far more as a county if money was spent on ways to prevent and reverse illness, even if that means giving away free bikes and produce.

Keeping people sick is cruel and benefits only pharmaceutical companies.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm going to say this real slow one last time. Then promote funding for helping people to change their lifestyle rather than removing healthcare. Another wildly inconceivable idea is to add funding to healthcare, rather than cut it every year. Yes, taxes may have to increase, yes, people will call that socialism, and yes, quality of life will go up for most people, without even requiring those you find morally reprehensible to die sooner than necessary.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Then promote funding for helping people to change their lifestyle rather than removing healthcare.

Literally what I've been saying. We both agree.

Another wildly inconceivable idea is to add funding to healthcare, rather than cut it every year.

We agree here, too.

But without unlimited funds, you'll need to allocate where the money goes.

Do you want it to go towards paying for medication for otherwise reversible illnesses, or to fight childhood cancer?

Do you want to use that money treating smoking-related illnesses, or dementia?

Do you want doctors treating unvaccinated adults, or helping someone with an autoimmune disorder?

It's not always an easy call, since everyone has a right to healthcare. But give voters the opportunity to decide where funding goes, and I'm sure that it won't be a 50/50 split.

... without even requiring those you find morally reprehensible to die sooner than necessary.

I never mentioned denying healthcare to child rapists, but ok.

If you're talking about regular sick people, I don't want anyone to suffer longer than they need to. That includes being on a lifetime of medicine that's not solving their underlying issues, rather than giving them the power to get healthy.

I'll say this slowly: Keeping people sick when better solutions exist is cruel and completely unnecessary.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Make it a referendum, but everyone who is engaging in an activity that risks their health has to vote against removing treatment for lifestyle diseases, and you'll be at 80% before the ballots are printed. Most people think their poor lifestyle choices aren't that big of a problem, just everyone else's.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

... but everyone who is engaging in an activity that risks their health has to vote against removing treatment for lifestyle diseases...

That's the wrong way of looking at it.

"Risks their health" could be their job.

If someone has a curable/reversable illness, then we have to focus on getting them there. Not expensive, prolonged treatments that keep them sick.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So what's your plan to get people to exercise 150 minutes per week in the current adult generation? This would reasonably cost almost nothing and dramatically reduces your risk for diabetes, yet, 60% of Canadians are overweight or obese. I don't imagine reducing their access to medical services is going to change that, besides making them die faster, yet that's what you first proposed.

And as you said, and as I was trying to point out, there are a lot of health risks, and many of them are entirely within their power to change.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

So what's your plan to get people to exercise 150 minutes per week in the current adult generation?

I'll go ahead and say the obvious: health takes effort.

When you consider that "Canadians spend 21 hours a week watching TV and video content", I can't sympathise with excuses.

Prioritizing 150 minutes (at a minimum) out of 1,260 spent watching TV should be easy.

Replacing even a single errand from car to bike is a simple way to do this. Replace your commute from driving to cycling or public transportation/walking, and you don't even have to think about "finding time" to move.

I personally feel that if the government gave each family an ebike, you'd have a massive net benefit in more areas than one.

But it goes beyond just exercising, and one area that I think our government should focus on is making healthy foods cheaper and more accessible (through subsidies, consumer rebates, etc.) and unhealthy foods more expensive (through taxes).

I don't imagine reducing their access to medical services is going to change that, besides making them die faster, yet that's what you first proposed.

Perhaps I didn't explain it properly, so that's on me.

Access should be universal. Nobody should be denied access to healthcare.

Where my opinion shifts is whether taxpayers should fund medication that prolongs treatable illness or not.

Why not fund programs that reverse disease? Make community center fitness programs free, and see what impact that has. Kids sports programs should also be free.

Give every family a monthly rebate that can only be spent on produce, and see what happens.

Ultimately, people will still need to decide on whether their health, or the health of their family, is important. But the government can certainly incentive positive choices to make things easy and accessible for everyone.