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.

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    Diabetes drugs covered include insulin - for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, which can cost between C$900 and C$1,700 a year - and Metformin, which helps lower blood sugar levels for people with type 2 diabetes.

    Type 1, for sure.

    But I’m on the fence with type 2, since it’s a completely preventable, and reversible lifestyle illness that only requires patient education and accountability.

    Someone refusing to look after their own health shouldn’t be a burden on the healthcare system or taxpayers, IMO.

    Instead of covering the meds, invest in patient education, instead, like we’ve done for smokers.

    It would be a win for everyone if someone can get off expensive medication that they only need because of poor lifestyle choices.

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 days ago

      Sorry, you had me laughing at 1700 a year being expensive. And do you have any idea what it would cost to determine if someone was sufficient to meet your standards? 1700 per person per year would be on the low end. Now, what about smokers, drinkers, recreational drug users, people who eat too much, people who drive too fast, people who use recreational motor vehicles, the list goes on forever. Accept the fact the people are going to do things that negatively impact their health in ways that you don’t, and vice versa, and wading through the list to see who’s sufficiently worthy to receive care will cost more than caring for them, and will add yet another burden to the group of people caring for those patients.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        24 days ago

        Now, what about smokers, drinkers, recreational drug users, people who eat too much, people who drive too fast, people who use recreational motor vehicles, the list goes on forever.

        Again, lifestyle related illnesses should be treated through patient education, not prolonged with taxpayer funded “treatment”.

        Everyone should have access to doctors, but we’re not talking about unlimited resources, and some patients should be sent home with a “reverse your disease in 60 days” guide, rather than “here’s a prescription to continue your curable disease for the next 40 years.”

        Actually reversing someone’s disease, rather than prolonged management, would save our healthcare system billions a year.

        Wouldn’t we all be better off with common sense healthcare, rather than kneejerk sickcare?

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 days ago

          So, have you been to a doctor? 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. Some don’t know how to achieve that.

          A lot of the things you talk about already happen, at the most superficial level. It isn’t working. But, much like drug addiction, people would rather vilify those who are so weak as to succumb to addiction (or overeating) rather than providing the resources to help them beyond a handy little pamphlet telling them everything they already know.

          But that isn’t what you started with advocating. Rather than advocating better resources to help people deal with the causes, you promoted the idea of removing help treating their symptoms if they didn’t meet your criteria of trying enough to fix the underlying causes, of what I imagine are your personal pet peeves.

          • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            23 days ago

            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.

            • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              23 days ago

              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.