The cost of stop-smoking drugs

A recent editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal proposed that drugs designed to help people stop smoking should be covered by provincial drug plans.

The editors pointed to a study that found reimbursing the cost of these smoking-cessation drugs significantly improved one-year abstinence rates among smokers. They recommend that provincial government immediately include these medications in their dug plans.

We asked whether you thought provincial governments should cover the cost of stop-smoking drugs, and as of Thursday, 66 per cent of voters agreed that they should.

"With the amount of taxes that the government is making off of cigarettes, they most definitely should put that towards smoking-cessation programs," wrote dipndi, a reader from B.C. "In the long run, the more people that quit, the better it'll be on our health care system."

While many commenters agreed that helping people to stop smoking would help lighten the financial burden on our health care system, others disagreed, arguing that stop-smoking drugs aren't always effective.

"Looking at this from the point of view of a taxpayer, our health-care system is already far too backed-up and inefficient," wrote A_Protester from St. Albert, Alta. "I think it certainly is NOT FAIR for the government to force us into now not only paying the smokers health care costs, but for programs to help them quit their habit, especially since these programs are not even at the stage where they guarantee 100 per cent success."

Some readers felt that individual smokers, not the government, should ultimately be responsible for the costs of quitting.

"If the average smoker can afford the expense of their habit / addiction, then why can't they afford to quit?" wrote Facebook user Desrae Komar, who admitted to being a former smoker. "It's time to be accountable for your own action people, and that means stop blaming tobacco companies for YOUR addiction and stop asking the government to bail you out!!!!!"

What do you think? Should governments cover the costs of stop-smoking therapies? Have your say.

Public auto insurance

Earlier this week, critics slammed the changes to Ontario's auto insurance policies, arguing that they would provide less coverage for the same cost.

Several CBC readers responded to the story with endorsements for public auto insurance systems, which exist in the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec. We wanted to find out just how many of you support public auto insurance, so we asked. As of Thursday, over 790 votes were cast, with 75 per cent of favour of government-operated auto insurance.

Many commenters who supported public insurance spoke from experience. "Having come from a province with public insurance to a province with private insurance, my auto insurance rate doubled. The excuse was that private insurers do not recognize public institutions," wrote hamseyct, who is listed as being from Calgary. "Eight years later, and my rates (no accidents and no tickets) have only dropped by $400/ year. Still nowhere close to the extra $1,200 I had to hand over."

Another user pointed out that public insurance systems can benefit society at large. "One benefit of a public insurance system is that 'profits' are spent improving road safety, particularly in high accident areas," wrote Widget Maker. "You'll never get that from a private system."

A few readers, on the other hand, argued that public insurance is not all it's cracked up to be. "It has its high points and low points," wrote Graham Tabor via Facebook. "The worst of the lows is the amount of time it takes MPI [Manitoba Public Insurance] to pay out settlements. I know of a case where a man lost his wife and daughter to a drunk driver and it took (no word of a lie) 25 years to pay out."

What do you think about public auto insurance? Do you have any experience in that system? Share your stories.