Know what I'm tired of? Large health organizations and health professionals who do expensive studies -- only to tell us that if we tax "XYZ", it will prevent people from doing "XYZ" so we'll have a healthier population.
My latest issue is with the Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA). They want all of us to make their little campaign an election issue. Why? Not really sure, since one of the issues they want the government to "change" is already in place and fairly easy to access. Let me explain.
The first on their agenda is they want the government to put a tax on "sugary" beverages, in an effort to prevent Type 2 Diabetes. If you look at their definition of a "sugary drink", it is to include non-diet pop, sweetened iced teas, sports drinks, energy drinks, fruit flavoured drinks (such as fruit punch or vitamin waters) and blended coffee drinks.
Now, I think we would all agree that basically everything on the shelf has exorbitant amounts of added sugar (or carbs that your body converts to sugar). For example: a medium-sized orange has approximately 15 g of carb (sugar). A glass of OJ (pretty much any brand) has approximately 30 g of carb (sugar) per cup. By the definition of "sugary", I'd assume OJ is going to fall in that category -- and if not, it damn well should.
Why do I think this is the wrong approach??? Look at the crazy taxes on cigarettes. Yet, thousands and thousands of people still smoke. Basically, this analogy prevents nothing. People know very well smoking is bad for them. They know consuming too much sugar is also bad for them. You cannot control with taxation. People still do what they choose to do, regardless of having to pay more.
My next question is this: will all the tax money generated from sugary beverages go directly to our health care system to help fund medications, insulin pumps, CGM's, education, etc. for those with diabetes? Not likely -- but that's exactly where the money should go.
The other reason I disagree with this tax is my Type 1 daughter needs fast-acting sugar to correct lows; and, basically, that's every drink the CDA wants taxed. Not to mention, in times of illness, we use sports drinks (regular and diet) to help keep her hydrated. Sorry, CDA, but sometimes diabetics need these beverages so they don't die. Now you expect every insulin-dependent diabetic to pay more for the drinks they need??? Low blood sugars are unpredictable.
Diabetics pay enough. Without insurance, supplies for a Type 1 average $600/month with insulin pump therapy. This cost doesn't include emergency supplies, such as juice boxes. Let's not add to that expense. Please.
Next, they want to see changes to the Disability Tax Credit to include people with Type 1 Diabetes. Hate to break it to the CDA, but they are a few steps behind the times. We have been receiving this Tax Credit for my daughter for 2 1/2 years out of her 4 1/2 years with this disease -- and were back-paid to the date of her diagnoses. The only area with the application that is somewhat tricky, is proving you spend approximately 14 hours per week managing the disease. I was lucky enough to be part of an online support group with one of the members being a very active advocate. Just go to her page www.diabetesadvocacy.com, under the "Disability Tax Credit" tab and you will find the detailed information you need to qualify.
Their final -- and only item I agree with -- is to provide financial aide for diabetics in regards to their medication. Some provinces have programs for pump supplies but not funding in place for those without insurance or no insulin pump. Diabetes is a costly disease.
However, these next issues also need to be addressed immediately. Funding for earlier screening needs to be provided -- as this is one reason many with Type 2 have significant side-effects caused by the disease, such as heart problems, kidney failure, nerve damage and blindness. A recent report I read stated many Type 2's have had the disease go undetected for approximately 10 years. We need to improve this.
There should also be better education for Type 2's and continuous support for both Type 1's and 2's. I've spoken to many Type 2's who have zero clue what to watch for with their diets, eg. carbs or how to match their meds to their food. For the insulin dependent Type 2, they have no clue how their long-acting and short-acting insulin works -- or which to adjust if their numbers are high. Heck, many don't even understand what basal insulin vs. bolus insulin is. Without this knowledge, it is virtually impossible to improve -- or maintain -- the status of your health.
Also, there is a huge stigma placed on people with Type 2 that they caused their disease. That they should have been able to prevent it. In the case of those with genetic pre-dispositions, people often have done everything right -- yet are still diagnosed with Type 2. It's completely unfair to put this stigma on anyone with any disease. It makes it harder -- mentally and emotionally -- to manage. Therefore, the public should be properly educated to prevent this stigma.
I believe these are the true underlying reason diabetes is reaching epidemic proportions and putting such a huge strain on our health care. Proper education truly needs to be addressed.
Maybe the CDA could change their campaign to include these issues and remove the redundancy of taxation. Let's educate, rather than make treating a disease more costly than it already is.
#diabetes
Friday 18 September 2015
Thursday 3 September 2015
Cell Phones in School
This is a very hot topic on social media right now, after a picture popped up stating the following:
First, every adult who agreed whole-heartedly with kids not having their phones at school are the same people who expect to have full access to their cells while at work. Not to mention, these adults probably bought the phone for their kids in the first place. Also, for every adult who agreed, do you allow your kid to take their phone to school? Bet you do. Few workplaces insist their employees put their phones away, unless they are front-line retail workers. So why are adults insisting kids put their phones away? Set an example. Adults, put yours away first.
Next, why are you judging the reason behind someone else's kid having a cell phone in the first place? Are you their parent? Do you know the reasons behind them having one? Do you know the rules the parents have placed on them having the phone? Who are you to judge why my kid -- or anyone else's -- has one? Are you paying for it? No? Then take a healthy dose of "Shut the Fuck Up" and mind your own business.
Now, many teachers at the junior high level and up allow the kids to use their cell phones in class to research social studies projects and various other projects. Access to computer labs at school isn't always easy. They are a great learning tool. It teaches kids responsibility and how to use their devices wisely in a controlled environment. Kids love their devices -- NOT just to text their buddies but for the information they can find at the press of a button. Both of my kids find some very interesting facts about the subjects they like. Hell, I've researched tons of things on my cell phone -- things I would've forgotten to look up later had I not had a cell. Again, for all you adults who say they shouldn't be in the class room, update your thinking and open your mind to new learning styles. Kids learn exceptionally well this way.
What about the odd kid who has no cell phone? How does that kid make sure they are marked present? When teachers take away expensive devices, are they going to be held responsible for private property that gets stolen? Lost? Broken? What security measures do teachers like this have in place so the kids get their phones back? Let me guess: they don't and will summarily refuse to accept responsibility.
My final complaint about this discussion is how mean people are to those of us who believe kids should be allowed to have their phones with them. There is NO NEED for the kind of cruel comments that smack loudly of school-yard bullies. Don't like the reason someone has a phone for their child -- whether it's a chronic disease or to help keep them safe while they walk to and from school? Scroll by. There's no need to say "your kid had blah, blah, blah 30 years ago and survived school just fine". Or kids were safe enough 30 years ago walking to and from school. Good for you, but I guarantee if you'd had access to this technology 30 years ago, you would've used it. Also, let's not forget that many teachers today won't take responsibility for a kid's medical issues -- 30 years ago, they did. Also, the world was a safer place 30 years ago, so you knew your kid was going to be fine going to and from school. Because people were kinder 30 years ago -- we've morphed into a planet full of self-centered idiots.
Better yet, how about we just drop the double-standards? If you expect kids not to have phones at school, then I expect each and everyone of you to NEVER have your phones at work. If you don't believe kids should have cell phones, then make sure yours doesn't before you go pointing fingers. Because, honestly, I've seen more rudeness from adults regarding cell phone use than I have ever seen from kids.
Let's also recognize smart phones for their educational capabilities. They are not evil, little devices that turn the human race into zombies. If that's how you view them, then I hope you don't own one -- or a computer, for that matter. Unfortunately, I know many of you own both -- because I've read your ignorant comments.
Bottom line is this: everyone does what is best for them and their situation. Outside opinions don't matter. Keep them to yourself.
"A teacher decided that in order for his students to be marked present, they have to put their cell phones into one of these slots at the start of class, which they will get back after class is finished."Many adults agreed with this statement. However, I don't. I'll list the many reasons why I disagree with this.
First, every adult who agreed whole-heartedly with kids not having their phones at school are the same people who expect to have full access to their cells while at work. Not to mention, these adults probably bought the phone for their kids in the first place. Also, for every adult who agreed, do you allow your kid to take their phone to school? Bet you do. Few workplaces insist their employees put their phones away, unless they are front-line retail workers. So why are adults insisting kids put their phones away? Set an example. Adults, put yours away first.
Next, why are you judging the reason behind someone else's kid having a cell phone in the first place? Are you their parent? Do you know the reasons behind them having one? Do you know the rules the parents have placed on them having the phone? Who are you to judge why my kid -- or anyone else's -- has one? Are you paying for it? No? Then take a healthy dose of "Shut the Fuck Up" and mind your own business.
Now, many teachers at the junior high level and up allow the kids to use their cell phones in class to research social studies projects and various other projects. Access to computer labs at school isn't always easy. They are a great learning tool. It teaches kids responsibility and how to use their devices wisely in a controlled environment. Kids love their devices -- NOT just to text their buddies but for the information they can find at the press of a button. Both of my kids find some very interesting facts about the subjects they like. Hell, I've researched tons of things on my cell phone -- things I would've forgotten to look up later had I not had a cell. Again, for all you adults who say they shouldn't be in the class room, update your thinking and open your mind to new learning styles. Kids learn exceptionally well this way.
What about the odd kid who has no cell phone? How does that kid make sure they are marked present? When teachers take away expensive devices, are they going to be held responsible for private property that gets stolen? Lost? Broken? What security measures do teachers like this have in place so the kids get their phones back? Let me guess: they don't and will summarily refuse to accept responsibility.
My final complaint about this discussion is how mean people are to those of us who believe kids should be allowed to have their phones with them. There is NO NEED for the kind of cruel comments that smack loudly of school-yard bullies. Don't like the reason someone has a phone for their child -- whether it's a chronic disease or to help keep them safe while they walk to and from school? Scroll by. There's no need to say "your kid had blah, blah, blah 30 years ago and survived school just fine". Or kids were safe enough 30 years ago walking to and from school. Good for you, but I guarantee if you'd had access to this technology 30 years ago, you would've used it. Also, let's not forget that many teachers today won't take responsibility for a kid's medical issues -- 30 years ago, they did. Also, the world was a safer place 30 years ago, so you knew your kid was going to be fine going to and from school. Because people were kinder 30 years ago -- we've morphed into a planet full of self-centered idiots.
Better yet, how about we just drop the double-standards? If you expect kids not to have phones at school, then I expect each and everyone of you to NEVER have your phones at work. If you don't believe kids should have cell phones, then make sure yours doesn't before you go pointing fingers. Because, honestly, I've seen more rudeness from adults regarding cell phone use than I have ever seen from kids.
Let's also recognize smart phones for their educational capabilities. They are not evil, little devices that turn the human race into zombies. If that's how you view them, then I hope you don't own one -- or a computer, for that matter. Unfortunately, I know many of you own both -- because I've read your ignorant comments.
Bottom line is this: everyone does what is best for them and their situation. Outside opinions don't matter. Keep them to yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)