Time for A Universal Pharmacare Plan


tay
+1 / -1
#1
Monika Dutt makes the case for a national pharmacare program.




https://www.policyalternatives.ca/si..._Medicines.pdf






And the Institute for Research in Public Policy concludesthat in the absence of a federal government willing to take the lead, we'd be best of to have the provinces take the first step in making medication available to everybody who needs it.





News Release: Provinces should provide full and universal pharmacare
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+2
#2
A left wing think tank. Of course they would expect the taxpayer to pay.
 
Tonington
+2 / -1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

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
Free Thinker
#4
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
Free Thinker
+2
#5
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
No Party Affiliation
+3
#6  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

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
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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
Free Thinker
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

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
#9
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
#10
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
#11
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.
 
petros
#12
Why would they impede sales?

Generics are made by pharmaceutical companies.

Who you think makes them?
 
Nick Danger
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Generics are made by pharmaceutical companies.

Who you think makes them?

But usually not the same companies who put the time and money into developing, testing and publicizing the drug, right? That's why they can sell them cheaper, isn't it?
 
petros
#14
Of course, post patent expiration, explain that to clitfford.
 
Ludlow
No Party Affiliation
#15
get offen the dope
 
tay
-1
#16
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
Conservative
+1
#17
Unfortunately, a "national" drug plan would be implemented provincially and our province is broke, man.



... not that it would stop them.
 
tay
#18
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/queensp...care-cohn.html
 
tay
#19
Why Canada needs universal pharmacare and how to make it happen


How to make universal pharmacare happen in Canada | Troy Media
 
TenPenny
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

A left wing think tank. Of course they would expect the taxpayer to pay.



I'm pretty sure that the taxpayers pay for their own drugs now.
 
MHz
#21
A box of borax and other 'equipment' would set you back about $50/yr, . . . for a family of 4. Baring broken bones and child-births there would be no hospital stays for 'other illnesses'.
The Pharmacist should be able to prescribe meds as the doctors are only acting as middle men, expensive middle-men and like all middle-men they have no actual purpose. The pancreas of society if you will. Tits on a boar also fits.

What taxpayers support is an industry that such as much money as they can rather than as much is needed. It isn't only the military that buys common bolts at $250/item rather than $2.50/item. Taxpayers also fund the creation of new diseases that are let loose as soon as a cure is available. Phage medicine is the method that is easy to update and it is immune form any 'super-bug' ever developing so once it is up to date keeping it up to date is less work than more.
So far taxpayers aren't getting the service they think they are and they are they only ones that can change it as greed has already won over the ones currently in charge.
Last edited by MHz; May 8th, 2017 at 08:55 AM..
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+1
#22
Universal HerbalCare yes, FUK Pharma junk.
 
MHz
#23
Why am I not surprised??
Vaccines contain ingredients that cause allergic reactions, diseases, disorders and even death ? have you read the vaccine insert sheet? ? NaturalNews.com
Vaccines contain ingredients that cause allergic reactions, diseases, disorders and even death – have you read the vaccine insert sheet?


(Natural News) Did you know the smallpox vaccine (Acam 2000) contains infected African Green Monkey kidney cells? Why would you inject them into your body, and how could that possibly help you fight off disease, when it can easily cause disease?
Did you know the RotaTeq vaccine contains a deadly disease strain that is responsible for a massive die-off of wild pigs in China? Why would anyone ever agree to have this injected into their muscle tissue to supposedly “help” prevent some other disease? It’s simply insane. It must mean that nobody is reading the vaccine insert sheet and questioning the ingredients in this vaccine made to “fight” off the rotavirus.
Did you know that the HPV Gardasil contains recombinant DNA – that means genetically modified viruses and bacteria that could harm your pre-teen or teenager? The toxic, useless jab also contains polysorbate 80, which is synthetic. Do you really want to inject this into your body? You better read the whole list of ingredients from the vaccine insert sheet now.
Guess how much deadly mercury is in the average flu shot? The CDC lied when they said they took mercury out of all childhood vaccines, because there’s still mercury in the influenza vaccines in the form of thimerosal, and those are still recommended by the CDC for children, infants and pregnant women… so, you were saying?
In fact, thimerosal (50% mercury) given during pregnancy shows the highest relative risk of malformations when compared to other non-mercurial antimicrobials. Many countries restrict the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines, or “TCVs,” to children older than six months, but in the USA, mercury still remains in the majority of influenza vaccines that the CDC, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, hospitals, corporations and public school systems alike push on the unknowing public like candy. This deadly concoction is dispensed by just about anyone, without even owning a medical license or bothering to read the vaccine insert, that warns you outright NOT to get more than one flu shot in a lifetime.
No safe levels have ever been determined for mercury in vaccines



American Academy of Pediatrics declares “no science” needed to prove vaccines are safe, because they BELIEVE ? NaturalNews.com
American Academy of Pediatrics declares “no science” needed to prove vaccines are safe, because they BELIEVE

(Natural News) After publicly declaring that all vaccines are safe and not linked to autism, the American Academy of Pediatrics refused to provide a single shred of scientific evidence to support their claims. Even more laughably, the AAP said that there’ no need to provide any evidence at all, since the safety of vaccines is assumed to be true. Thus, who needs science when there’s such a widespread feeling of certainty?
This is the sad state of the abandonment of science by the entire medical establishment, which now employs troll farms to viciously smear and attack any person who refuses to mindlessly worship the “Religion of Vaccines.” Vaccines are uniquely declared exempt from all scientific scrutiny — or even any convincing, legitimate evidence of safety — based entirely on the woo woo feelings of vaccine promoters whose actions resemble psychopathic cult members more than defenders of legitimate science.
Read this astonishing report by Jeremy Hammond from JeremyHammond.com to understand more:
American Academy of Pediatrics Refuses to Back Vaccine Claims with Science

When asked whether it could provide studies to support specific claims it made about vaccine safety, the American Academy of Pediatrics ultimately declined.
On January 10, 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a press release to express its opposition to a federal commission that has been proposed by the Trump administration to examine vaccine safety and efficacy. The AAP argues that since we already know that vaccines are safe and effective, therefore there is no need for further examination into their safety and efficacy.
This argument, however, begs the question — it presumes in the premise the proposition to be proven (the petitio principii fallacy). And the press release itself illustrates why, apart from the question of whether there should be a federal commission, critical examination of public vaccine policy is very much warranted.
In its press release, among other things, the AAP stated that:
  • Vaccines prevent cancer.
  • Claims that vaccines are linked to autism “have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature”.
  • Claims that vaccines “are unsafe when administered according to the [CDC’s] recommended schedule” have likewise “been disproven by a robust body of medical literature”.
According to the AAP, its own claims are backed by solid science. Yet when asked whether it could provide citations from the medical literature to support its claims, the AAP first failed to do so, then essentially offered a “No comment” when pressed for a comment about its failure to do so.
With respect to the claim that vaccines prevent some forms of cancer, the AAP was asked:
  • Can you please direct me to any studies in the peer-reviewed medical literature showing any vaccine prevents cancer?
With respect to the other two, the AAP was asked the following questions:
  • Can you please direct me to the studies you are referring to in this body of literature that took into account the possibility of a genetically susceptible subpopulation?
  • Can you please point me to the studies in this body of literature that have compared health outcomes, including but not limited to developmental regression (i.e., autism), for children who’ve receive the CDC’s full schedule of vaccinations with children who’ve remained completely unvaccinated?
An initial email to the AAP containing these questions went unanswered.
The email was followed up with a phone call. Lisa Black, the AAP’s Media Relations Manager, assured that she would get back with answers to the questions. In a subsequent email, Ms. Black replied, “Please see information that AAP has posted for parents on this page”, which was followed by a link to a list of studies on the website HealthyChildren.org.

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Universal HerbalCare yes, FUK Pharma junk.

Perhaps move it up to being the first line of defense rather than being put in the wastebasket. An hospital with zero occupied beds is a desired goal by any patient, it is not in the interest of the shareholders of the company that is the Hospital. I wouldn't suggest people who are ill not go there, not getting ill in the first place in something that is in the patients ability to influence to a certain degree.To only get that knowledge when you are 65 means the system is broken as those lessons should have started back when I skinned a knee when I was 6 years old.
It certainly speaks of control from a hidden spot rather than we get what is promoted, that act alone voids all contracts that call for dialogue rather than cancellation of the account that bankers and politicians currently have with the 'tax-payers' and general public as children are often targeted for medical experiments. Something the 3% allow themselves the right to do on the 97% but flinch at the thought of the 97% having that same right.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

I'm pretty sure that the taxpayers pay for their own drugs now.

Yes we pay for our own drugs,now someone wants us to pay for drugs for everyone else as well.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#25
I got off every pharmaseutical about a year ago including Synthroid and Statins, I don't and won't take anymore BS magic pills from drug pushing shjthead docturds. My docturd assured me I would become very sick and die in six months frum another heart attack, I didn,t, in fact I'm in better shape now than when I was thirty. No thanks to the pharmasuetical pushing whitecoats. You are what you eat and you can eat your way to health.
 
TenPenny
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Yes we pay for our own drugs,now someone wants us to pay for drugs for everyone else as well.



Well, that's not actually the case, but if you want to believe it, that's fine. I'm assuming you don't buy home insurance or car insurance. Because it would be crazy for you to pay for someone else's accidents or fires.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Well, that's not actually the case, but if you want to believe it, that's fine. I'm assuming you don't buy home insurance or car insurance. Because it would be crazy for you to pay for someone else's accidents or fires.

That is exactly the case. I already have a reasonably good drug plan, why would I want to pay higher taxes so someone else can get free drugs?
 
tay
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

That is exactly the case. I already have a reasonably good drug plan, why would I want to pay higher taxes so someone else can get free drugs?

A lot of people have none. Canadians already pay less for drugs than Americans as we have seen. We also pay less for Healthcare so possibly if we had a Pharmacare Plan, that part of what your employer pays for coverage could go directly to you in the form of a raise or maybe to a Pension Plan if you have one..........


The head of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour (NLFL), representing thousands of union members and workers in Canadian easternmost province, is joining the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) in its call to provincial premiers to re-commit to establishing a single-payer, universal prescription drug plan in Canada.

“In Newfoundland and Labrador, public spending covers less than half the cost of prescription medicines,” said NLFL president Mary Shortall. “Of the 236,200 workers in this province, an estimated one in three—over 78,000—don’t have health benefits.”

The St. John’s Telegram reports that the CLC, which is the country’s largest labor federation, gathered in Alberta in July for events that ran concurrently with a meeting of premiers of Canada’s provinces and territories—the Council of the Federation.

Labor leaders used that opportunity to prompt premiers to lobby the federal government for a national pharmacare plan to ensure all Canadians have access to life-saving medications and to bring down the costs of the increasingly “out-of-control system.”

Canada’s single-payer health care system is administered by the country’s provincial governments, and the labor movement is looking to enlist the premiers in its push for a country-wide prescription plan. Implementing pharmacare will require a major infusion of cash from the federal government, which is currently headed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

According to the NLFL, evidence shows Canadians who rely on prescription drugs don’t have the money to cover costs and instead are splitting pills, skipping doses to stretch prescriptions, sharing medicines, or going deep into debt to make ends meet.

A survey by Angus Reid, in 2015, found 26 percent of Canadians in the Atlantic provinces, for instance, do not take their medications as prescribed because they can’t afford to. This can cause serious health complications, Shortall said.

“When people skip their medications or otherwise ignore doctors’ orders, because of costs, additional burdens to the health-care system actually cost everyone more,” she said.

The NLFL pointed out that Canada’s public per capita prescription drug spending in 2014 was second highest among countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, at US$772 per person, far above the OECD average.

Canada is the only country with universal health care that does not have a universal program for prescription drug coverage, despite the stated goal of universal coverage in the 2004-14 Health Accord between the federal and provincial governments.

Canadians know bulk buying is the smart option,” Shortall said. “In public opinion surveys, over 90 percent of both citizens and employers believe a universal prescription drug plan is important to Canadian health care coverage. Pharmacare is the type of smart policy Canadians are looking for from our political leaders.”

She said by adopting a single-payer program, Canadians would benefit from bulk purchasing power, giving them the power to obtain competitively priced prescription drugs. She said through aggressive pharmaceutical company competition for Canadian business, a single-payer, universal prescription drug program could save Canadians approximately $7.3 billion a year, based on an additional $1 billion in public sector spending.


Canadian unions push for Pharmacare


91% of Canadians want a National Pharmacare Program. It’s time.

To: Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister
CC: Hon. Jane Philpott, Minister of Health

SUBJECT:

Make your letter count!

Please add your own words and describe why this is important to you.


https://secure.canadians.org/ea-acti...paign.id=53627
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#29
The Brits have national pharmacare but they are taxed up the yin-yang. The only positive is that they bulk buy and get a far better deal on their drugs than we do.
 
JamesBondo
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

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

solutions have to be as diverse as our provinces are. One size fits all sucks. An Ottawa thinking that we are all a reasonable ambulance drive from a major metropolitan hospital is bad news for rural Canadians. They are likely not going to understand the needs of a small population that is remote, or a small population with a high risk of trauma due to a local industry.
 

Similar Threads

9
National Pharmacare?
by SLM | Mar 3rd, 2013
3
It is Time for A National Drug Plan!
by Spade | Sep 14th, 2010
0
Universal harmonies
by akbar | Oct 26th, 2007
2
The universal mysticism
by akbar | Oct 14th, 2007