Liberals and New Democrats reach a deal on pharmacare

[herbie]

Singh admits the deal is mainly just a diabetes and contraceptive deal for now

So it only benefits 50% of the population that uses the pill and >5 million diabetics.
Not you the non-diabetic man, so you're totally opposed.

And dental and pharmacare have nothing to do with the shortage of doctors or hospital wait times, that's another issue entirely.

 

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, herbie said:

Singh admits the deal is mainly just a diabetes and contraceptive deal for now

So it only benefits 50% of the population that uses the pill and >5 million diabetics.
Not you the non-diabetic man, so you're totally opposed.

Well no - not really. 

First off 50 percent of the population doesn't use the pill. That would assume every single woman takes the pill. That is simply not true.  According to some reseaarch - it's about 16 percent.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/2015010/article/14222-eng.htm

So - it would benefit about 8 percent of the population in theory.

However about 90 percent of those people already had excellent coverage one way or another. in some provinces it's 100 percent.

So the real benefit is less than 1 percent of the population.

Likewise diabetes. 5 million people perhaps BUT - the vast majority already have some sort of coverage. in some provinces it's already better than the fed plan. So you're talking about a fraction of that.

So this isn't a 'universal pharmacare plan at all -  it's a small benefit for two specific issues for a fairly small number of canadians.  And the provinces are already starting to opt out.

 

[blackbird]

Providing pharmacare for only two groups of people in Canada is discriminatory.  The NDP and Liberals have said they plan to fund people with diabetes and those who need birth control.  What about the millions of people who have other health problems and require expensive medications for heart disease and various other problems?  They pay the same taxes according to the tax regime.  Are they not worthy of support too?  I hope many people challenge this in court as a form of discrimination and contrary to the Charter of Rights.

[Dougie93]

37 minutes ago, blackbird said:

  I hope many people challenge this in court as a form of discrimination and contrary to the Charter of Rights.

don't be naive

the courts are utterly corrupted

 as the Judiciary itself has fallen to the Cultural revolution

the Charter of Rights is ignored by the ruling elites in every venue

all assumptions as to the rule of law are forfeit

at this, the downfall of our civilization in progress

only the Nazarene can save us, same as it ever was

rejoice at the coming of the angel of death therein

like a stranger in the night

a tramp on the side of the road

to Calvary Hill

 

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

Singh admits the deal is mainly just a diabetes and contraceptive deal for now

So it only benefits 50% of the population that uses the pill and >5 million diabetics.
Not you the non-diabetic man, so you're totally opposed.

And dental and pharmacare have nothing to do with the shortage of doctors or hospital wait times, that's another issue entirely.

 

Thats not what it means, your just guessing, it would be more on the lines of first your wage, how much you make...like the day care or dental...How many don't have insurance via the job or pension...and since most canadians already have work or pension that cover all of that already your numbers drop off drastically...so now we are waiting for the total cost...lets see how many canadians will get to use this program and how much is it going to cost....

And yes those programs do have something tpo due with shortages, those funds , or should i say tens of billions of dollars could have went into shoring up health care we already had that is a wreck...

[eyeball]

35 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

And yes those programs do have something tpo due with shortages, those funds , or should i say tens of billions of dollars could have went into shoring up health care we already had that is a wreck...

It's not much but it's a start.

In the meantime pissing and moaning about the cost to the taxpayers is music to the ears of the top 1-3% and the wealth defence industry that battles tirelessly on their behalf.

The issue of cost is a little hilarious when you really start looking at just how unequal the economy truly is.

Tens of billions truly are mice testicles in comparison to the 100's of trillions sloshing around the moneysphere.

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's not much but it's a start.

No it isn't. It's a failure - and then it will die a failure and never be resurrected again. They've killed it.

Quote

In the meantime pissing and moaning about the cost to the taxpayers is music to the ears of the top 1-3% and the wealth defence industry that battles tirelessly on their behalf.

Sure, why not.

Quote

The issue of cost is a little hilarious when you really start looking at just how unequal the economy truly is.

Making it MORE unequal is funny in your mind? Who do you think is going to be paying for this in the long run?

Quote

Tens of billions truly are mice testicles in comparison to the 100's of trillions sloshing around the moneysphere.

it's a lot to the poor people who's services will eventually be cut to pay for it.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Making it MORE unequal is funny in your mind?

Is that really how you. read that? Weird.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Who do you think is going to be paying for this in the long run?

Eventually it'll be mostly the ridiculously rich.  After the next great war.

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

it's a lot to the poor people who's services will eventually be cut to pay for it.

Yes well, maybe that war will be sooner than you think.

It'll be tragic but still faintly hilarious watching right wing conservatives dying in waves for the benefit of billionaires - fighting against people in the same pay grade. It is what it is I guess.

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

It's not much but it's a start.

In the meantime pissing and moaning about the cost to the taxpayers is music to the ears of the top 1-3% and the wealth defence industry that battles tirelessly on their behalf.

The issue of cost is a little hilarious when you really start looking at just how unequal the economy truly is.

Tens of billions truly are mice testicles in comparison to the 100's of trillions sloshing around the moneysphere.

If they want pharmacare they might want to 1. increase taxes, even if on the 1%, to pay for it instead of just dumping it onto the debt, and 2. fund to fix the actual healthcare system first because it's horribly dysfunctional and people are suffering and some dying because of it.

Provinces have their own programs for low income folks who can't afford their drugs.  There is no alternative to our health systems,

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Is that really how you. read that? Weird.

It's really how you said it, and a lot of things you say are weird so i didn't think much of it.

Quote

Eventually it'll be mostly the ridiculously rich.  After the next great war.

Da komrade!

Quote

Yes well, maybe that war will be sooner than you think.

Or not at all.'  They'll just suffer.  Meanwhile you'll pat yourself on the back and talk about how you've been discussing this for decades now when you haven't and talk about how it's all the rich people's fault when in fact it's people like you.

Quote

It'll be tragic but still faintly hilarious watching right wing conservatives dying in waves for the benefit of billionaires - fighting against people in the same pay grade. It is what it is I guess.

Not likely. We've got all the guns  

[August1991]

On 2/25/2024 at 10:57 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Advanced countries in Europe can afford universal pharmacare programs. It’s about time we started down that track. 

I disagree.

I suspect, like people in China, the Europeans are free-riding on Americans.

It is costly to develop and test new drugs.

The American people - some 400 million - create the incentives for new drugs.

Edited February 28, 2024 by August1991

[blackbird]

So seniors on a pension that pay hundreds a month for heart medications and other illnesses will receive no pharmacare but still pay taxes to provide pharmacare for diabetes patients and birth control for people that may have lots of money.

Edited February 28, 2024 by blackbird

[herbie]

Oh FFS you live in BC!! Seniors already have Pharmacare. I pay like $20
every 3 months for diabetes meds.

And you've paid taxes for years and not got that benefit, now you're griping about getting more for tax your money. You just want to whine like an American about taxes benefiting your neighbour. Go reread your Bible for that "render unto Caesar" bit.

 

 

[Gaétan]

You will tell the leader of the NDP who says that diabetes drugs and contraceptives will be free that there is nothing free, including his drug plan. If he wants to have free drugs, the people who produce them have to work for free by volunteering, and that is what I am advocating and he needs to put that in his program.