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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • GreyEyedGhost
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.

      • Showroom7561
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        … 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.

        • GreyEyedGhost
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          17 minutes ago

          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.