Time for A Universal Pharmacare Plan

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
A left wing think tank.

What makes you say that? Besides, aren't you anti-pharmaceutical and pro-naturopath? That's a predominantly left-wing position.

Anyways, their argument is pretty simple. Pooled resources can negotiate better prices.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Center for policy alternatives in an NDP thing. You would be surprised at how many people you might consider right wing go to naturopaths. And chiropractors.
I get their argument but as usual they leave out the who pays part. Now we are always going to pay for the poor but do taxpayers really need to finance medicine for the rich just so their kids get a bigger inheritance?
There is also a push for a national dental plan similar to our medical. Again who pays?
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
I'd just like to see equal quality (preferrably good) treatment available from coast to coast. As it is now, life-saving treatments available in one province aren't always available in another - covered or not
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Center for policy alternatives in an NDP thing. You would be surprised at how many people you might consider right wing go to naturopaths. And chiropractors.
I get their argument but as usual they leave out the who pays part. Now we are always going to pay for the poor but do taxpayers really need to finance medicine for the rich just so their kids get a bigger inheritance?
There is also a push for a national dental plan similar to our medical. Again who pays?

Well logically speaking the biggest tax paying group in the country is the middle class, and it's also the middle class that has the most trouble securing medical, prescription and dental coverage if they aren't fortunate to have an employer that provides a group plan...and many don't. Private insurance can be the most cost prohibitive for them as well given the higher taxes we pay in Canada, only the truly well off can afford private insurance generally speaking. So, if the middle class is the largest tax paying group and the middle class is probably the one who would truly get the most benefit (as you said, the poor already have coverage due to low income) who's paying for whom really?

Having said that though, I'd hate to see the government run it. They don't really do a good job running the healthcare system that we have now in my opinion. I do think health coverage, and that would include eye care, dental care, prescription medications should be a basic right we should all enjoy in a nation as prosperous as Canada.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Center for policy alternatives in an NDP thing.

Well this came from Institute for Research in Public Policy. Not the same thing. Go check out their website, they're non-partisan.

You would be surprised at how many people you might consider right wing go to naturopaths. And chiropractors.

Almost to prove my point then, so why does it matter what 'wing' the information comes from?

I get their argument but as usual they leave out the who pays part. Now we are always going to pay for the poor but do taxpayers really need to finance medicine for the rich just so their kids get a bigger inheritance?

No, the tax payers finance it for everyone so that everyone has access to medication. Not just so rich kids get more inheritance...this is no different than group insurance. It's a better deal.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Well this came from Institute for Research in Public Policy. Not the same thing. Go check out their website, they're non-partisan.



Almost to prove my point then, so why does it matter what 'wing' the information comes from?



No, the tax payers finance it for everyone so that everyone has access to medication. Not just so rich kids get more inheritance...this is no different than group insurance. It's a better deal.

That is like the rich getting government pensions.

The first link is to ccpa.
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Pharmacare is too costly and will not be introduced in this Parliament, says Health Minister Dr. Jane Philpott.

At the same time, more than 90 per cent of Canadians support the concept of pharmacare and health economists have shown through studies that, "Canada-wide savings from national pharmacare at between $4 billion and $11 billion per year, depending on how the program is structured."

Reliable research has shown that on a total cost of $27 billion paid for drugs, we pay up to $11 billion more than we would with a national plan. Meanwhile both provincial plans and private insurance plans are struggling under the high prices and cutting back coverage. If done correctly national, comprehensive universal pharmacare coverage is a no-brainer, and the Council of Canadians has joined 300 health professionals and academics in a letter urging the government to support universal pharamacare.

It came as a major disappointment this week that Canada's Health Minister, Jane Philpott, indicated pharmacare is not part of her mandate. It has been reported that the minister believes pharmacare is too costly and she has highlighted it will not be introduced in this Parliament.

Canada (link is external) is the only country in the world with a medicare system that excludes prescription drugs as if they are not part of the health-care system."

Pharmacare for all Canadians could save up to $11.4 billion a year (link is external)by decreasing drug costs and reducing administration fees."
 

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
Healthcare is mostly provincial domain, and they constantly use the feds as an excuse for their shortcomings.

We might as well make the pharmacare a fed thing, too. That way, the provinces will have total deniability
 

Nick Danger

Council Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,798
461
83
Penticton, BC
I wonder how much resistance to a truly universal pharmacare plan comes from the pharmaceutical companies themselves? Pharmacare programs often choose to cover only generic issues of the more expensive, name-brand equivalents, thus denying the name-brand corporations their profits.
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Canadians sometimes make strange choices about how we want government to spend the tax money we hand over every year. A recent poll from the Angus Reid Institute is a startling illustration of that.

When the polling firm asked Canadians if they would like to have a pharmacare system, they got a resounding “yes.” Then they asked Canadians how they would like to pay for that. The choices included increasing the GST, restoring the corporate tax rate to 18 per cent, increasing the basic income tax rate, or charging a pharmacare premium. While restoring the corporate tax rate seemed like a good idea to more than half the respondents, the idea of any kind of tax increase wasn’t particularly popular. And that’s understandable.

But an important option was missing — and that’s where Angus Reid seemed to miss the point.

Eliminating tax haven use could save Canada almost $8 billion a year. That’s enough to cover universal public prescription coverage almost eight times over.

Time after time, budget after budget, poll after poll, those in charge make it sound as if we’re too poor as a country to afford the programs that would really improve Canadians’ lives. The fact that revenues are lost to poor policy on tax havens and loopholes is often conveniently ignored.

At this stage of the game, the federal finance minister doesn’t need to raise taxes to pay for pharmacare. Bill Morneau just has to make sure that Canadian multinationals and wealthy individuals pay the tax rate we already have. That isn’t happening right now.
It’s simple. Canadians can continue to support a tax system that lets the richest avoid paying $8 billion in taxes annually — or we can tell them that the party’s over. Instead of ignoring what is happening in the Cayman Islands, Panama and other tax havens, we can urge our politicians to invest the taxes owing on those billions into services that benefit individuals, families, communities and the country as a whole.

So with apologies to pollsters everywhere, here’s my list of the questions we need to be asking Canadians:
  • Do you believe that Canadian corporations should pay the stated corporate tax rate — the second-lowest in the G7 — and be prevented from using tax havens to avoid paying their share?
  • Would you support clamping down on the use of tax havens and other loopholes, and using the billions gained as a result for public programs like pharmacare?

  • There is solid data supporting raising taxes in

    more

  • What Tax Avoidance Costs Us (For One, Pharmacare) | The Tyee
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
Unfortunately, a "national" drug plan would be implemented provincially and our province is broke, man.



... not that it would stop them.
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Andre Picard highlights how Canada's current patchwork of prescription drug coverage is contrary to the principles of universal health care.


And Steve Morgan makes the case for universal pharmacare.


Also Martin Cohn emphasizes the importance of making such a program available to everybody

The ideological appeal of universal pharmacare is that it also offers the benefits of bulk buying. By pooling our purchasing power provincially (and ultimately nationally) government drug insurance would save billions of dollars annually.

Pharmacare isn’t charity, it’s efficiency. In future, as the private sector slowly rolls up drug benefits the way it has phased out pension plans, the pressure will increase on governments to pick up the slack.

To be perfectly clear, the latest Liberal budget plan isn’t perfect. It does not yet provide full coverage for all age groups. If you are between 25 and 65 (seniors get virtually free drugs), you will still be left in the lurch — dependent on your employee benefits plan if you are employed, or government drug benefits if you are on welfare, or nothing at all if you are between jobs and fall between the cracks.

The mystery is why it has taken so long for pharmacare to catch up with medicare, leaving Canada as the only major industrialized country to have one without the other. Years from now, we will wonder why we dragged our feet instead of taking the inevitable next step, allowing our love affair with medicare to blind us to the scandalous and obscene absence of universal pharmacare across Canada.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...-deserve-free-drugs-from-pharmacare-cohn.html