Why no Pharmacare?

[Mr.Canada]

Pharmacare works great in the UK and Ferance. I think Canada should have it as well. What is the main opposition stance to it?

[Smallc]

It costs money...money that is needed elsewhere.

[Mad_Michael]

Pharmacare works great in the UK and Ferance. I think Canada should have it as well. What is the main opposition stance to it?

Lack of need.

1. Canada generally has among the lowest costs of pharmaceutical products in the western world.

2. Seniors (the primary consumers of pharmceutical products) are among the wealthiest cohort in Canada (2nd wealthiest age cohort).

Where's the problem? If Canada had huge amounts of poor seniors who couldn't afford pharmaceutical products, then perhaps you might have a case for government program. But as it stands, there's no substantial problem here.

In other words, taxing modest working people to pay for the pharmaceutical products for one of the wealthiest groups in society doesn't sound like good public policy. Canada is not France and it isn't the UK where such factors may be different.

[Mr.Canada]

It costs money...money that is needed elsewhere.

That may be a fair statement. Can you qualify it please?

I for one would take money from overseas aid to help pay for it. We have been sending many many countries aid for decades. They are far too used to being a welfare state and we need to cut them off. Since we send TENS OF BILLIONS($10,000,000,000) of dollars overseas EVERY YEAR, surely we can cut back on that aid which has been going on for decades. And for little to no return I might add, aside from getting their refugees which sit on our dole ranks of course.

We, as Canadians, need to stop feeling guilty about putting ourselves number one and take care of our own first and foremost.

[Vancouver King]

Pharmacare works great in the UK and Ferance. I think Canada should have it as well. What is the main opposition stance to it?

Conservative and Liberal govts both agree tax breaks for oil companies and banks have a higher priority. Wouldn't you rather see an Exxon V.P. build a nicer villa in Tuscany than a pensioner afford her prescriptions?

[Mr.Canada]

Conservative and Liberal govts both agree tax breaks for oil companies and banks have a higher priority. Wouldn't you rather see an Exxon V.P. build a nicer villa in Tuscany than a pensioner afford her prescriptions?

Well some tax incentives for companies are important. They are the ones who will be giving our people the good paying jobs everyone wants. Even Layton knows this. Every party will do the exact same thing but they like to play politics and say what is popular to the public.

Why is it that when Pharmacare is mentioned, everyone talks about seniors? There are plenty of working people and working families who would benefit from this program. Just to mention seniors is just parroting what is seen on the news.

[Argus]

Pharmacare works great in the UK and Ferance. I think Canada should have it as well. What is the main opposition stance to it?

I'm for it for the important drugs. I think the priority is probably low because we already have a mishmash of government funding for such things. Seniors in Ontario for example, get all their prescription drugs free except for the dispensing fee. There are also government programs to pay for life saving drugs that are too expensive for ordinary people, ie, heart medication. I'm assuming other provinces have similar programs.

[Smallc]

That may be a fair statement. Can you qualify it please?

I for one would take money from overseas aid to help pay for it. We have been sending many many countries aid for decades. They are far too used to being a welfare state and we need to cut them off. Since we send TENS OF BILLIONS($10,000,000,000) of dollars overseas EVERY YEAR, surely we can cut back on that aid which has been going on for decades. And for little to no return I might add, aside from getting their refugees which sit on our dole ranks of course.

We, as Canadians, need to stop feeling guilty about putting ourselves number one and take care of our own first and foremost.

Yes, we should just let those people starve. Point is, everyone has idea of where money should be spent and not, but it doesn't make them right. Running a country is a juggling act, and there are choices to be made when it comes to program spending.

Edited October 13, 2008 by Smallc

[Mr.Canada]

Yes, we should just let those people starve. Point is, everyone has idea of where money should be spent and not, but it doesn't make them right. Running a country is a juggling act, and there are choices to be made when it comes to program spending.

How many 1,000,000,000's of dollars do we need to spend for them to be self sufficient? Enough is enough already. We need to deliver conditions on this aid money and not just send it blindly as they do now.

If some accountability was incorporated perhaps there would be more money available for our own people. We need to start raising our own standard of living and not concern ourselves so much with others.

Edited October 13, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[Smallc]

How many 1,000,000,000's of dollars do we need to spend for them to be self sufficient? Enough is enough already. We need to deliver conditions on this aid money and not just send it blindly as they do now.

If some accountability was incorporated perhaps there would be more money available for our own people. We need to start raising our own standard of living and not concern ourselves so much with others.

To your first point, CIDA doesn't just give the money away, and to your second point, again, that's just one opinion. I would like Pharmacare as much as the next guy, but priorities have to be formed, and right now the priorities of the Government of Canada don't agree with yours.

[Mr.Canada]

To your first point, CIDA doesn't just give the money away, and to your second point, again, that's just one opinion. I would like Pharmacare as much as the next guy, but priorities have to be formed, and right now the priorities of the Government of Canada don't agree with yours.

It isn't my priority at all just a good idea for some time down the road. Sheesh, everyone here is so mean spirited and cynical. I feel sorry for you all...for about 10 secs, then I no longer care..lol.

[Smallc]

It isn't my priority at all just a good idea for some time down the road. Sheesh, everyone here is so mean spirited and cynical. I feel sorry for you all...for about 10 secs, then I no longer care..lol.

Actually I'm not cynical at all. I am nearly the exact opposite.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

The biggest concern I would have about pharmacare would be the potential abuse of it just like medicare. With medicare people go to the doctor for the most minor of ailments - because they don't have to pay for it.

If pharmacare existed it might make certain people apt to get prescriptions when they are not necessarily needed too. We are already having a problem with over prescribing anti-biotics which has served to produce drug resistant bacteria... how much worse could this problem be with

I don't have any problem subsidizing the expensive drugs... but for the relatively cheap stuff I don't see why people can't pay for it. People should also pay a small amount when they see a doctor - that might make the 'chicken little' think twice before visiting a doctor for sniffles or a cough. Fewer people wasting doctor's time would mean less waiting time for real issues.

[Smallc]

The biggest concern I would have about pharmacare would be the potential abuse of it just like medicare. With medicare people go to the doctor for the most minor of ailments - because they don't have to pay for it.

I don't really call that abuse. If you think you should go, then go, that's how I look at it. And I'm not one of the people that goes all the time.