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.

  • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
    102·
    19 days ago

    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.

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
      65·
      19 days ago

      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.

        • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
          11·
          18 days ago

          doubtful. you are like you would yell “conservative!!!” at me if I didn’t approve of making cigarettes free by paying it from taxes, as a solution to a lot of people spending a lot on smoking

        • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
          45·
          19 days ago

          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?

          • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
            41·
            18 days ago

            …and if they didn’t make the right choices, they can suffer more and die sooner. Good choices, there.

          • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
            41·
            19 days ago

            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.

            • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
              36·
              19 days ago

              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.

              • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
                4·
                19 days ago

                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.
                • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
                  26·
                  18 days ago

                  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.

                  • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                    5·
                    18 days ago

                    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?