The two aren't comparable. You really want Doug Ford to decide what and who can be eligible for what treatments, only to have it overturned by the next premier?

Unelected, nonpartisan bureaucracy is what prevents those swings.

But you're not wrong - Ford is smothering healthcare, as seen by the hospitals struggling with finances right now. Its a problematic sign if most of the major hospitals are all struggling at the same time. Less funds mean poorer service and less availability, and that part is directly driven by politics in the longrun.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You really want Doug Ford to decide what and who can be eligible for what treatments, only to have it overturned by the next premier?

No, the total opposite. I think the government regulation of medicine should be limited to ensuring a drug’s safety, but not efficacy. This was the regime we had decades ago that gave us some of the most useful medications we still have, such as NSAIDs, antibiotics, and many vaccines.

Let me, an individual, decide (along with my doctor) which drugs I should or shouldn’t be taking.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

but not efficacy

that's how you get snake oil

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

and chemotherapy

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

you make an adulterous and valid point. godsdamn curing ourselves by poisoning ourselves to death.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

Plenty of that out there already, see the supplements category.

What removal of efficacy requirements does in reality is open the door to a lot more off label use.