Canada passes bill to cover birth control and diabetes drugs
Canada passes bill to cover birth control and diabetes drugs
The government said it is the initial phase of a plan that would expand to become a publicly funded national programme.
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're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
Canada currently has a shortage of physicians and other healthcare workers, and 6 million Canadians don't have a family Dr (source).
But you want all those people - even ones living in remote regions with zero access to physicians-- to be forced to toe the line you've drawn in the sand?
I imagine you support the Conservatives as well.
Oh god, is that what you understood?
No. Give people who don't have access to doctors more access. Everyone should be getting access.
My point was specifically towards using taxpayer dollars to pay for prolonging lifestyle related illness.
If we have the opportunity to get people off their meds and to a place of better health, we should go for it. But that's not what happens when you simply enable people to continue with lifestyle related illness for their entire lives.
I'm talking about empowering those who have the option to better their health, not taking aware care from those who don't.
How on earth did you come up with your assumption about what I wrote??????
I imagine you support the Conservatives as well.
I've voted liberal for over 20 years and have no intention of voting for any other party. It's OK to disagree with some things your party does, especially when there are better ways to get to a more ideal outcome. This is one thing I disagree on, because there ARE better ways to get to a better outcome.
I didn't 'misunderstand' anything.
This is all on you buddy.
I didn’t ‘misunderstand’ anything.
I think you must have, and it could be that I didn't explain things properly.
But I want the healthcare system to make people healthy, not prolong their suffering. Who would be against that?
...and if they didn't make the right choices, they can suffer more and die sooner. Good choices, there.
You said ...
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.
I didn't 'misinterpret' anything. You blamed people for having type 2 diabetes, added a quote you took out of context, and generally alluded to the assumption that anyone with type 2 diabetes should be left to their own devices.
You blamed people for having type 2 diabetes...
A lifestyle disease, is, by its very definition, caused by the actions of the person (i.e. smoking, not exercising, poor eating habits, alcohol and drug use, etc.). If kids have it, then I'd blame the parents 100%.
This is a good thing to note, because that puts control in the patient's hands.
added a quote you took out of context
If you read the article (by the Chief Medical Editor of Harvard Health Publishing...), you can clearly see that it wasn't out of context at all.
Literally every major health authority, including diabetes orgs and the WHO, have published materials on preventing and reversing type-2 diabetes.
Assuming that someone wants to get better, the fact that anyone would have long-term type 2 diabetes is a failure of their doctor and the healthcare system that's supposed to be helping them.
generally alluded to the assumption that anyone with type 2 diabetes should be left to their own devices.
Again, you've misunderstood completely.
Knowing that Type 2 diabetes is both preventable and reversible should be encouraging to patients. Why on earth would anyone want to suffer through a lifetime of insulin dependency, potential for blindness and amputations, when they can reverse this terrible disease????
And crazy enough, the lifestyle changes that reverse type 2 diabetes are also the same lifestyle changes that prevent the other top killers: heart disease, cancer, stroke, etc.
Our healthcare system should be educating patients on how to get better, not sell them expensive drugs (at taxpayer's expense).
We can disagree, sure, but no patient should be treated like they are doomed to sickness for the rest of their life.
You assume that the article you referenced in your original post is the final say on type 2 diabetes.
I would recommend you do some more research on the subject.
From the Mayo Clinic
Factors that may increase the risk of type 2 diabetes include:
- Weight. Being overweight or obese is a main risk.
- Fat distribution. Storing fat mainly in the abdomen — rather than the hips and thighs — indicates a greater risk. The risk of type 2 diabetes is higher in men with a waist circumference above 40 inches (101.6 centimeters) and in women with a waist measurement above 35 inches (88.9 centimeters).
- Inactivity. The less active a person is, the greater the risk. Physical activity helps control weight, uses up glucose as energy and makes cells more sensitive to insulin.
- Family history. An individual's risk of type 2 diabetes increases if a parent or sibling has type 2 diabetes.
- Race and ethnicity. Although it's unclear why, people of certain races and ethnicities — including Black, Hispanic, Native American and Asian people, and Pacific Islanders — are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than white people are.
- Blood lipid levels. An increased risk is associated with low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol — the "good" cholesterol — and high levels of triglycerides.
- Age. The risk of type 2 diabetes increases with age, especially after age 35.
- Prediabetes. Prediabetes is a condition in which the blood sugar level is higher than normal, but not high enough to be classified as diabetes. Left untreated, prediabetes often progresses to type 2 diabetes.
- Pregnancy-related risks. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes is higher in people who had gestational diabetes when they were pregnant and in those who gave birth to a baby weighing more than 9 pounds (4 kilograms).
- Polycystic ovary syndrome. Having polycystic ovary syndrome — a condition characterized by irregular menstrual periods, excess hair growth and obesity — increases the risk of diabetes.
Most of those are quite literally lifestyle related. The others seem to be correlated, but not causal.
The consensus is that lifestyle changes, better than medical treatments, work better and should be the default.
One of my friends growing up had type 2 diabetes, got diagnosed at 6 years old despite otherwise being a normal, healthy, active, skinny little white girl from a middle class family who's biggest diabetes-related crime in the normal person's eye would be she had a fondness for hot chocolate and drank it as a treat a time or 2 a week, usually at church
No treatment for her, then, since clearly her lifestyle caused it? Or do you maybe not understand it as well as you think you do?
I'm going to wind up with Type 2 because of genetics. Something is amiss with the way my family handles cholesterol and fat. We are prone to dementia and strokes as well. You want me to suffer and die because of that? You think my family is an isolated case? You're yapping away about things you don't understand, champ. Your opinions are ignorant and shameful.
I'm going to wind up with Type 2 because of genetics.
Lifestyle change will still be more effective at controlling it than insulin.
So, in that case, would you rather get free insulin, or better support to help make and sustain a healthy lifestyle?
Lifestyle changes? I'm a rower.
Great. You've already been working to mitigate the risk.
You did say that you don't currently have Type 2 diabetes, right?
I'm pre-diabetic. Sometimes people just get sick. I hope you never have to swallow your pride.
I’m pre-diabetic.
Again, I will repeat what every major health and diabetes org has to say on the matter: lifestyle will have the most impact on the course of this disease.
In fact, we know this to be true because of studies we have on twins... same genetics, different environments, one might develop the disease while the other does not.
My point is, it would be better for patients to get more support to better their environment and lifestyle, than simply providing insulin.
I say this as someone who's lived with a chronic illness (autoimmune) for over a decade, so I'm not trying to sound holier than thou. It sucks to be sick, but I'd rather get support for things known to better my condition than things that don't.
I sure hope you have a pristine lifestyle without any vice that could cause any type of chronic injury or illness, because boy would that be ironic.
Crazy idea: how about we cover both the meds and the education of the population on the matter. I know, a bit too crazy, but might be worth a shot.
you can do both, this is a false dichotomy.the purpose of healthcare isn't to judge people, it's to have as healthy a population as possible so the country can prosper.
you can do both
Not when resources and funding are limited, unfortunately.
That's kind of why we shouldn't prolong lifestyle related illnesses, and should aim to reverse them instead.
funny how resources are always only limited with regard to healthcare but never for militarizing the police, bombing brown kids, or decade long invasions. get out of here.
I don't disagree.
Found the conservative shill.