|
DynamicSloth posted:It was always the NDP negotiating strategy to seek a limited number of medications as long as they were covered on a truly universal basis. Two kinds of pretty important medication, is definitely half a loaf but the Liberals at least aren't going to rip insulin or contraception away from people if the program gets up and running. The Liberal pharma care "pilot" is less than nothing, most people would not notice if it was instituted nationally, which pointedly they have not done, they just need something to run on that doesn't make the lobbyists mad. I posted about this earlier but I'm not well versed on reading healthcare stuff. Chillyrabbit posted:To pull the emergency lever to not post about posters. Does the bill actually say that insulin and contraceptives (birth control) are 100% going to be funded once the bill passes, or is it only just reports and studies about how pharmacare is too expensive please buy private insurance?
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
Honest question: pharmacare is obviously a huge issue, but if they wanted broad appeal, why didn't they go for vision care? Many more people need it, and it probably costs less per person. Cynically, that's the way to go, no questions asked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 02:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Honest question: pharmacare is obviously a huge issue, but if they wanted broad appeal, why didn't they go for vision care? Many more people need it, and it probably costs less per person. Cynically, that's the way to go, no questions asked. Because it’s much less of a financial burden and isn’t an immediate necessity of life in the same way most medications are. More importantly I don’t think people would really care, particularly not people without glasses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 03:36
|
|
|
a primate posted:Because it’s much less of a financial burden and isn’t an immediate necessity of life in the same way most medications are. More importantly I don’t think people would really care, particularly not people without glasses. Most people need glasses (like, literally, a majority of humans), and if the alternative is being functionally blind and/or unable to work, I think most people would consider them necessary. Not very many people need drugs by comparison. That's why I said "cynically." Of course we should support people who need drugs to live, as we should support people who can't see properly without corrective lenses and such. But one group is way, way larger than the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 03:40
|
|
|
I guarantee you that the number of people who cannot afford drugs, or have to make painful sacrifices to afford them, is infinitely larger than the number of people that need glasses but can't afford them. Glasses are also something that even the most bottom of the barrel guaranteed-acceptance insurance already covers. I can't imagine anyone I know even noticing, much less caring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 03:51
|
|
|
Yeah, insurance companies hate paying for drugs. Doubly, so if you have a pre-existing condition or develop one
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 04:33
|
|
|
I do agree it’d be a no brainer for universal coverage and probably relatively cheap to implement. I just wouldn’t stake the NDP election campaign on having pressured the libs for years to provide us with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 05:12
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Glasses are also something that even the most bottom of the barrel guaranteed-acceptance insurance already covers. I can't imagine anyone I know even noticing, much less caring. have you tried asking poor people
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 10:58
|
|
|
Bleck posted:have you tried asking poor people It's never come up, unlike diabetes meds or contraceptives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 13:14
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Most people need glasses (like, literally, a majority of humans), and if the alternative is being functionally blind and/or unable to work, I think most people would consider them necessary. Sure. But you can go to Zenni or such like and get fully functional glasses very cheap, if you're willing to not have designer frames. Or you can wear somebody else's glasses if they happen to have the same prescription. And those glasses will last until broken, or until your eyesight changes. It's not a monthly recurring charge. If you're expecting to get new glasses every two years, say, put ten bucks a month in an envelope, and you'll be just fine. Insulin, however, doesn't work the same way. I can't take your hand-me-down insulin. The insulin I left in the back of the drawer when I got a new prescription doesn't still mostly work two years later. Insulin is perishable. Insulin is frequent. Insulin isn't made to order at InsulinCrafters at the mall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 13:54
|
|
|
Why not both and dental care? they're all loving valid things out of our control and it's absolutely asinine that we have to pick and choose
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 14:33
|
|
|
Bro you can't give them vision care yet. Need to promise something for the next election (then not deliver)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 14:38
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Glasses are also something that even the most bottom of the barrel guaranteed-acceptance insurance already covers. I can't imagine anyone I know even noticing, much less caring. LOL LMAO Either you have some very fancy benefits package or you barely need glasses, because I have never worked at a place where you get more than $200 every 2 years for vision. Let's see. The glasses I am wearing right now cost me about $450 ( before tax), after the $200 I got from my benefits package at the time. That's with the very cheapest frames at the optician's ($50). I have a hilariously strong prescription which necessitates special manufacture that really jacks up the price (even through the usual online places, these cost savings do not apply to people with high prescriptions), so obviously I am an outlier here with my Coke bottle lenses. Not everyone will need such pricey lenses, but the fact remains that even an additional $200 can be a major stumbling block for a lot of people. TheCenturion posted:Sure. But you can go to Zenni or such like and get fully functional glasses very cheap, if you're willing to not have designer frames. Or you can wear somebody else's glasses if they happen to have the same prescription. LMAO oh my God you really don't know what you're talking about here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 14:55
|
|
|
How many different prescriptions can there really be? Three? Four? Eyes are spheres — the simplest shape!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 15:04
|
|
|
Slotducks posted:Why not both and dental care? Absolutely agree, I'm responding to PTA6's weird hypothetical. Mad Hamish posted:Either you have some very fancy benefits package or you barely need glasses, because I have never worked at a place where you get more than $200 every 2 years for vision. Yeah, a couple hundred dollars every few years is not nothing. It's also not really comparable to insulin. e: like just to be clear, all of this poo poo should be free and paid for by the government, but I feel like "costs thousands a year, miss it for a week and you have a seizure and die" is the right place to be starting if we have to start somewhere. Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 15:08
|
|
|
I'm a public servant and my benefits plan covers my contacts for the year or an annual optometrist visit (which I need for a condition), but not both. Thanks Greenshield!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 15:10
|
|
|
eyes are luxury organs
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 16:01
|
|
|
sass menagerie posted:How many different prescriptions can there really be? Three? Four? Eyes are spheres — the simplest shape! Not if you have keratoconus 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 16:06
|
|
|
My wife's benefit plan cut the vision coverage because the coworkers without glasses out numbered the ones with glasses lmfaoMuscle Tracer posted:Yeah, a couple hundred dollars every few years is not nothing. It's also not really comparable to insulin. 100%
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 16:07
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:
Is this a MikeC post? Anyway,, I can only speak to my own experience and tell you that if I broke my glasses it would kinda gently caress me for the month.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 16:13
|
|
|
You can get glasses at Zenni optical for like $50 that will last you years (yes I’m cheap). Meanwhile $50 doesn’t even cover three months of one of the prescription drugs I’m on. It’s not even close.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 16:30
|
|
|
I'm sure it's not entirely comparable. I don't have diabetes so I'm not going to tell people how it is. I can, again, only speak for myself and say that glasses for a family of four is a pretty major expense. Some kind of national vision plan would be absolutely noticeable to me and probably an awful lot of other people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:I'm a public servant and my benefits plan covers my contacts for the year or an annual optometrist visit (which I need for a condition), but not both. Thanks Greenshield! Same, this is why I don't understand why other people say we need pharmacare. ZShakespeare posted:eyes are luxury organs Truly feels this way after talking to 5 specialists over 5 years to get strabismus surgery as an adult and having nearly everyone suggest prisms or 'living with it' instead of a relatively quick, minor, safe, effective and necessary procedure (almost 50% of people who get it done once need it a second time sometime in their life). Toalpaz fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
Vision care is super important, and decent lenses and frames are loving expensive without coverage which I know because I didn't always have coverage. All I can say is the people itt telling me I'd be fine getting around in life drat near legally blind if I had to makes me very happy to be a union employee with a good benefits package.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 17:02
|
|
|
Every place I've worked, where I am now included has lovely vision coverage. This year we got my husband his first pair of glasses, I need an updated prescription. He went through an online glasses store so it would be affordable. It sucks, but even then I have to admit I'd rather people have contraception and insulin, if I'm forced to choose. Everything should be covered and companies should be taxed more. Naturally doing so would leave conservatives lying about how it's worse for people. (Just like the carbon tax, they claim it's worse for the average person, but they're really just speaking up for companies.) My teeth are super messed up because teeth are luxury bones. I had a tooth that has been possibly dead for a decade. When it was taken care of I lost the pulsatile tinnitus and my tonsils swelling went down. I have gone to so many doctors appointments trying to figure out what was wrong with my ear and tonsils, nobody, not one person suspected my teeth. Everything is healthcare, it's all connected. Acting like teeth aren't living active parts of our health that have knock on effects is absolutely wild.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Most people need glasses (like, literally, a majority of humans) Is this true? Am I really outnumbered by you dorks?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
Mad Hamish posted:
You're going to have to back this one up, champ. A lot of people are straight diopter, no real necessity for axis or cyl. My daughter has massive astigmatism and all that, but somehow my old prescription sunglasses still worked great for her when her diopters happened to match them. Fundamentally, the point I'm trying to make is that the market realities behind glasses and behind insulin are very very different.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
Spending the $2k to get my eyes lasered out was a really great investment because now I don't have to buy glasses or contacts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:32
|
|
|
ZShakespeare posted:Spending the $2k to get my eyes lasered out was a really great investment because now I don't have to buy glasses or contacts. I don't know if the tech has changed but my optometrist has always told me that my prescription/condition is bad enough that even with laser I'd still need a mild prescription. For what it costs and still having to wear glasses or contacts it's just not worth it for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:34
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:I don't know if the tech has changed but my optometrist has always told me that my prescription/condition is bad enough that even with laser I'd still need a mild prescription. For what it costs and still having to wear glasses or contacts it's just not worth it for me. yeah, it depends on the thickness of the lens which determines its ability to be reshaped. Also the recovery sucks and I could understand why someone wouldn't want to do it. Also the healthcare system should just cover it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:You're going to have to back this one up, champ. A lot of people are straight diopter, no real necessity for axis or cyl. My daughter has massive astigmatism and all that, but somehow my old prescription sunglasses still worked great for her when her diopters happened to match them. Hi, I have a prescription that's - 8.5 in my left eye and - 10 in the right (this means: I can see clearly 13cm in front of my face and past that is a total blur), where exactly do you expect me to miraculously find a previously-enjoyed pair of glasses with this exact combination but also has a matching PD that isn't my old pair somewhere in a box under the bed that I replaced after eight years of wear because they were de-laminating? Like, for some people it's not "Oh, poo poo, I forgot my glasses, can you tell me what these cooking directions say," it's not being able to function in society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:41
|
|
|
ZShakespeare posted:Spending the $2k to get my eyes lasered out was a really great investment because now I don't have to buy glasses or contacts. Look at this dipshit that didn’t shell out the 2 million to get eye lasers
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:41
|
|
|
ZShakespeare posted:Spending the $2k to get my eyes lasered out was a really great investment because now I don't have to buy glasses or contacts. That’s what my wife did as well. Loves it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:43
|
|
|
Mad Hamish posted:Hi, I have a prescription that's - 8.5 in my left eye and - 10 in the right (this means: I can see clearly 13cm in front of my face and past that is a total blur), where exactly do you expect me to miraculously find a previously-enjoyed pair of glasses with this exact combination but also has a matching PD that isn't my old pair somewhere in a box under the bed that I replaced after eight years of wear because they were de-laminating? Yeah, and it doesn't even need to be a strong prescription. I'm -3.0 in both eyes and without my glasses my eyes are useless at seeing anything clearly beyond a couple feet away. Like it should all be covered, I think we all agree on that, but acting like not having access to your glasses is a mild inconvenience and not rendering people effectively disabled is dumb. And no, I don't happen to know anybody with my exact prescription who would have a loaner pair ready to go if I didn't have my glasses for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:It was always the NDP negotiating strategy to seek a limited number of medications as long as they were covered on a truly universal basis. Two kinds of pretty important medication, is definitely half a loaf but the Liberals at least aren't going to rip insulin or contraception away from people if the program gets up and running. The Liberal pharma care "pilot" is less than nothing, most people would not notice if it was instituted nationally, which pointedly they have not done, they just need something to run on that doesn't make the lobbyists mad. I am glad insulin is covered. It's ridiculous that it isn't completely covered and my heart still breaks for all the Americans who bought insulin from Canada when I worked for a pharmacy. Not that they'd be covered obviously just, the difference between the two countries for diabetics is really jarring. The discussion about vision care (my eyes also suck rear end) is good reminder that our understanding of healthcare has certainly evolved since UHC was introduced. I don't think anyone would have thought of dental as critical to someone's well being as it is now. Could be wrong on that though. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
ZShakespeare posted:Spending the $2k to get my eyes lasered out was a really great investment because now I don't have to buy glasses or contacts. I'd seriously considered it when I was younger, but something about 'carve bits of your eyes out with lasers' just never sat right with me. Now I have a pair of bifocals, and another pair of glasses for sitting at my computers. That I still take off sometimes so I can really squint at something. The song lied, you should absolutely fear the reaper. Mad Hamish posted:Hi, I have a prescription that's - 8.5 in my left eye and - 10 in the right (this means: I can see clearly 13cm in front of my face and past that is a total blur), where exactly do you expect me to miraculously find a previously-enjoyed pair of glasses with this exact combination but also has a matching PD that isn't my old pair somewhere in a box under the bed that I replaced after eight years of wear because they were de-laminating? So, because you're an outlier, nobody else on the planet can wear second-hand glasses. Gotcha. And yeah, I know. I'm -5someodd myself, and need glasses to function on a daily basis. Nevertheless, I'd rather be worried about having to not get Guess frames on my glasses than have to worry about how I'm going to pay for insulin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 20:47
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I am glad insulin is covered. It's ridiculous that it isn't completely covered and my heart still breaks for all the Americans who bought insulin from Canada when I worked for a pharmacy. Not that they'd be covered obviously just, the difference between the two countries for diabetics is really jarring. The high tide of social democracy in Saskatchewan did include universal dental for kids. There was some hope to expand it but that all changed with the rise of neoliberalism. My elementary school a very weird room that used to be a dentist/ healthcare room.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 21:08
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:Fundamentally, the point I'm trying to make is that the market realities behind glasses and behind insulin are very very different. Nobody should have to pay for either of those and this is an obvious fact to everyone that isn't hastily making posts in between voraciously choking down boots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 21:11
|
|
|
Great now do food Seriously though vision care is tremendously important and wanting for it correlates directly with advance of dementia in the elderly and avoidable hardships for everyone else, that cost society way more than it would to buy designer moon goggles for everyone biennially. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
Look, a functioning
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 21:40
|
|
