Universal pharmacare ?

[maryjane48]

Canada’s unions are proud that we’ve negotiated health-insurance coverage for many of our members. But we believe anyone with a health card should have coverage for the medicines they need. That’s why this Labour Day we’re launching a campaign to win a universal prescription-drug plan for all Canadians, regardless of their income, age, or where they work or live.

http://theprovince.com/opinion/op-ed/ha ... r-everyone

[GordonH]

Maybe more employers should look into extended medical benefits for their employees.
Half the premium paid by the employer & other half by the employee (some employers pay the whole premium now, its just added to employees t4)

Instead of the taxpayers flipping the whole bill.

[johnny24]

Maybe more employers should look into extended medical benefits for their employees.
Half the premium paid by the employer & other half by the employee (some employers pay the whole premium now, its just added to employees t4)

Instead of the taxpayers flipping the whole bill.

Employers are taxpayers too.

[Merry]

Canada is the only country in the world that has a universal healthcare plan that doesn't include universal pharmacare.

It doesn't seem an issue to many, because they currently have coverage through their employer. But anyone who loses their job, or retires, soon begins to realize just how expensive pharmaceutical drugs can be.

Even if you don't currently take any drugs, that could change on a dime if you suddenly develop a chronic illness.

If we did ever go to a system of universal pharmacare though, we'd have to have a serious discussion about what would, and would not, be covered. Because some drugs are unaffordable, even under such a system. And some drug companies take advantage of the political vulnerability of Governments, by demanding ridiculously high prices for certain drugs, and then using well placed publicity to tug at the public's "heartstrings" and get them to lean on their govts to pay up.

But if we could all agree on some sort of "basic" pharmacare coverage, I think society as a whole would benefit. Because having people not take medications they need can lead to more expensive health care bills down the road.

[Gilchy]

Maybe more employers should look into extended medical benefits for their employees.
Half the premium paid by the employer & other half by the employee (some employers pay the whole premium now, its just added to employees t4)

Instead of the taxpayers flipping the whole bill.

Why should Canadians be dependent on their employer for healthcare? It's always struck me as odd that we have universal healthcare, except when the care comes in the form of a drug or pharmaceutical.

[maryjane48]

if left to non union companies it will be a farce. it needs to be universal by our govt. thats what works best

[GordonH]

Maybe more employers should look into extended medical benefits for their employees.
Half the premium paid by the employer & other half by the employee (some employers pay the whole premium now, its just added to employees t4)

Instead of the taxpayers flipping the whole bill.

Why should Canadians be dependent on their employer for healthcare? It's always struck me as odd that we have universal healthcare, except when the care comes in the form of a drug or pharmaceutical.

Universal healthcare is paid via taxes (BC also has monthly premium), no employer actually pays extended medical since it's added to employee T4 (as additional income). Instead of being deducted it unseen hourly income (as has some employers in BC pay monthly medical premiums, then at end of the year it to is on employees T4 as additional income as well).
To add Universal Pharmacare would cause those with extended medical to lose that part, then taxes would go up to pay for it. Just like within current taxes is Universal Healthcare.
So in the end the employee get dinged for a little taxes, since that additional was not taxed as income.
Hopefully that makes sense.

Bottom line if Universal Pharmacare does happen the money will come via higher taxes.

[Merry]

You either pay directly out of pocket, or via your taxes, but yes you do have to pay for healthcare one way or the other. However, if the result of Universal Pharmacare is cheaper prescription drugs, then we'll be paying a lot less overall than we do under the current system.

Also, if people being able to afford their prescribed meds results in fewer hospital visits, that also will save us money in the long run.

So it just might end up being a "wash" once you take all that into consideration.

[bob vernon]

It's just amazing how some of the stanchest, crankiest, anti-union, gumment hating, free enterprisers can suddenly turn socialist when they get older and have to start paying for their prescriptions.

[alfred2]

It's just amazing how some of the stanchest, crankiest, anti-union, gumment hating, free enterprisers can suddenly turn socialist when they get older and have to start paying for their prescriptions.

link to that please or else retract the post

[Catsumi]

It's just amazing how some of the stanchest, crankiest, anti-union, gumment hating, free enterprisers can suddenly turn socialist when they get older and have to start paying for their prescriptions.

link to that please or else retract the post

Oh gosh, another missing Missing Link.

[maryjane48]

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is estimating that a new national pharmacare program would cost the federal government a little over $19 billion per year, a price-tag that could grow to $22.6 billion a year by 2021.



from cknw

[Merry]

But he also said that despite the apparent high cost, that overall it would save 4.2 billion dollars a year over what is being spent right now
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/n ... icer-finds

[bob vernon]

It's just amazing how some of the stanchest, crankiest, anti-union, gumment hating, free enterprisers can suddenly turn socialist when they get older and have to start paying for their prescriptions.

Former Social Credit cabinet minister gets older........ and turns socialist.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/07/22/W ... ve-Health/

[Merry]

I don't think advocating for Universal Pharmacare makes someone a "socialist". Far from it. Countries such as the UK have universal pharmacare and they've had many years of Conservative Government.

The argument for Universal Pharmacare is to SAVE money. What's partisan about that? Surely ALL political parties would like to save money, not just socialist ones.

If Governments are able to negotiate lower prices, we ALL save in the long run. And, in addition to saving on the cost of our drugs, if universal Pharmacare translates into more people taking their meds and therefore requiring fewer hospital visits, we all save again. So it really is a "no brainer". All we need is a Government with enough foresight and political will to take the leap and implement it. But I don't think Trudeau has the courage.