this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
280 points (99.0% liked)
Canada
7204 readers
201 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Communities
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
π Sports
Hockey
- List of All Teams: Post on /c/hockey
- General Community: /c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- MontrΓ©al Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Football (CFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Baseball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Blue Jays
Basketball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Raptors
Soccer
- List of All Teams:
unknown - General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
π» Universities
π΅ Finance / Shopping
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
π£οΈ Politics
- Canada Politics
- General:
- By Province:
π Social and Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Found the conservative shill.
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.
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.
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.
Literally what I've been saying. We both agree.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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'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.
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
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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
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?