Jump to content

Providing pharmacare for only two groups of people is discriminatory


Recommended Posts

The NDP and Liberals seem to be making a deal to bring in pharmacare for two groups of people in the country, people with diabetes and people using birth control.

This ignores the millions of other Canadians who have to pay for expensive drugs for heart disease and all sorts of other illnesses.

We all pay taxes according to the tax regime and therefore everyone should receive the benefit of any programs paid for by these taxes.  

Cherry picking certain beneficiaries is discriminatory.  It would not surprise me if some people will challenge this under the Charter of Rights as a form of discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you possibly make a more petty observation?
Those groups are a MAJORITY of the population and what's covered is a START of a pharmacare policy. And you'd literally shit bricks if they started with free drugs only for sickle cell anemia wouldn't you? And maybe have a case for your allegation.

Whining for the sake of whining because the Libs&NDP did it... go sit in the corner with Danielle Smith and put the hat on.

Edited by herbie
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many seniors on a pension will pay the lion's share of expensive drugs for heart conditions and other medical problems while certain people like diabetes patients and women wanting birth control, who might have lots of money, will be covered by taxpayers.   

Anything this government touches is a disaster.

Good that Poilievre is surging ahead in the polls.  There is hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Many seniors on a pension will pay the lion's share of expensive drugs for heart conditions and other medical problems while certain people like diabetes patients and women wanting birth control, who might have lots of money, will be covered by taxpayers.   

Anything this government touches is a disaster.

Good that Poilievre is surging ahead in the polls.  There is hope.

You forget about how much of the drug costs are already paid for with Provincial health care programs?

Wake up and smell the full picture LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You forget about how much of the drug costs are already paid for with Provincial health care programs?

Wake up and smell the full picture LOL

No, I have not forgotten.  But in B.C. they only pay part after you pay the first minimum which can be a large amount per year.

I live on pensions as a senior and the BC government covers a certain amount of the prescription drugs, but I must pay for the first $1,800 per year for prescriptions.  That is based on my annual income.   So I am paying a large part of the cost of the medications.  Fortunately I can afford it, but a lot of seniors might not be able to.  Many are barely surviving on their pensions.

The federal proposed NDP-Liberal pharmacare program plans to pay the whole cost of medications for diabetics and birth control pills regardless of how much money the person earns.  How is that equitable or fair for seniors and others with other serious illnesses whose medications could cost several thousand a year and they may have a very low income? 

These days with the high cost of mortgages, rent, and groceries, many people with serious medical conditions cannot even afford to buy prescription drugs.  So just arbitrarily supporting diabetics is not reasonable.

Birth control pills is not even for a medical problem.

They just picked two programs out of a hat probably thinking they could get some votes from the diabetic and birth control demographic.  Many young women will fall for this and think they are really getting something.  Oral contraceptive pills cost from $20 to $50.  If it is closer to $20 that is not a huge amount.  So women are not getting a lot out of this anyway.  But it sounds good for votes.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

No, I have not forgotten.  But in B.C. they only pay part after you pay the first minimum which can be a large amount per year.

I live on pensions as a senior and the BC government covers a certain amount of the prescription drugs, but I must pay for the first $1,800 per year for prescriptions.  That is based on my annual income.   So I am paying a large part of the cost of the medications.  Fortunately I can afford it, but a lot of seniors might not be able to.  Many are barely surviving on their pensions.

The federal proposed NDP-Liberal pharmacare program plans to pay the whole cost of medications for diabetics and birth control pills regardless of how much money the person earns.  .......

They just picked two programs out of a hat .....

Do you think there will not be income restrictions in the federal program??

How is the dental working??/Oh yeah, if you make more than $XX you get nothing. I do not see pharma care being any different.

Before you whine, wait for the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think calling it discriminatory, is a bit of a reach as diabetes affects a significant amount of Canadians. 

To me, putting money into treating or covering an insanely expensive disease that cuts many lives short, would make sense.

The issue I would have with this, is whether this solution would create several more problems. 

I doubt any government refusing to tell me how funds will come about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Before you whine, wait for the details.

We already have been told it is only going to be fore diabetes people and birth control, at least to start.

This proves it is discriminatory and choosing those two groups has nothing to do with income.  So it is already proven to be another untrustworthy plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

Many seniors on a pension will pay the lion's share of expensive drugs for heart conditions and other medical problems while certain people like diabetes patients and women wanting birth control, who might have lots of money, will be covered by taxpayers.   

Anything this government touches is a disaster.

Good that Poilievre is surging ahead in the polls.  There is hope.

Don't Seniors already benefits from Single-payer Pharmacare? 

Edited by Boges
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I think calling it discriminatory, is a bit of a reach as diabetes affects a significant amount of Canadians. 

It is discriminatory because it is choosing favourites.

About 10% of the population has diagnosed diabetes.  How can you ignore the thousands or millions of people with heart disease and other serious medical conditions who must pay for expensive prescriptions or can't afford to even buy them?

I thought any public health program was supposed to treat everyone equally and provide the said service to everyone on a fair basis.

If you think cherry picking is alright just so you can have some kind of program, then obviously you are not one of the people with heart problems or serious other medical conditions.  You are not affected so nuts to everyone else who must pay for medications, eh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

Don't Seniors already benefits from National Pharmacare? 

No.   There are provincial pharmacare subsidies in some provinces.  In B.C. a patient pays for his own prescriptions up to a specified amount per year depending on his income.  Then the pharmacare pays for medications for the rest of year.  In my case, as a senior on a pension, I pay the first $1,800 in a calender year.  Then the pharmacare kicks in and pays for the rest of the year's prescriptions.  This is done on the drug store's computer which is linked to the provincial government pharmacare system.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

It is discriminatory because it is choosing favourites

Or costliest in care for our health care system.

Negligent monitoring of diabetes, causes complications such as heart issues, amputations, blindness, can increase risk of alzheimer's significantly. Etc.

Favorite in comparison to what?

Many don't test their blood sugar, simply because they can't afford to.

Its the same reason  why checking your breasts and testicles became so mainstream, because simple checks can save your life. These checks are free.

There are no favorites. 

You're making it sound like like diabetes and other illnesses was like choosing between jail and a strawberry cheesecake.

The issue isn't who they picked. Anything affecting millions, will likely be a good choice is it ultimately reduces their strain on medical care.

The issue should begin and end at how will it be paid for. Is this a catch 22? Help some, hurt others, or is it a win win where you can't help but applaud the politicians who got it done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

Many seniors on a pension will pay the lion's share of expensive drugs for heart conditions and other medical problems while certain people like diabetes patients and women wanting birth control, who might have lots of money, will be covered by taxpayers.   

Anything this government touches is a disaster.

Good that Poilievre is surging ahead in the polls.  There is hope

Bullshit to that! You do realize those people you saw on the news with that problem are there because it is news. Which by definition means it's something new or uncommon. "People" are not paying the lion's share for heart conditions, move to the USA and you'll sure as hell find that out fast.

Women wanting birth control; that's your real problem isn't it? Loose women, teenage sluts that don't even need their parent's permission.
Plus the fact it's universal... Mr Bawl about discrimination is against universality, Mr X makes a living why should he not pay?

"Good that Poilievre is surging ahead in the polls.  There is hope"
Hope for what? That he'll take away programs? Not that it would help you achieve one iota of that in BC

Edited by herbie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Or costliest in care for our health care system.

Negligent monitoring of diabetes, causes complications such as heart issues, amputations, blindness, can increase risk of alzheimer's significantly. Etc.

Favorite in comparison to what?

Many don't test their blood sugar, simply because they can't afford to.

Its the same reason  why checking your breasts and testicles became so mainstream, because simple checks can save your life. These checks are free.

There are no favorites. 

You're making it sound like like diabetes and other illnesses was like choosing between jail and a strawberry cheesecake.

The issue isn't who they picked. Anything affecting millions, will likely be a good choice is it ultimately reduces their strain on medical care.

The issue should begin and end at how will it be paid for. Is this a catch 22? Help some, hurt others, or is it a win win where you can't help but applaud the politicians who got it done.

Seems like you are ok with a few elite liberal politicians arbitrarily picking who gets pharmacare and forget the rest who may be in just as much need.  You claim it reduces strain on the medical system.  I'm sure it does.  Maybe you would offer them MAID if they can't afford prescription drugs.  That would reduce the strain even more.

I've got news for you.  Everyone pays taxes and the seniors have paid all their life and yet if they don't have diabetes but have some other serious medical condition that requires expensive medications, too bad.  You still applaud the politicians who cherry picked some and ignored the rest of the people who need drugs.  Diabetes drugs are no more important than heart medications and medications for many other diseases. 

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Bullshit to that! You do realize those people you saw on the news with that problem are there because it is news. Which by definition means it's something new or uncommon. "People" are not paying the lion's share for heart conditions, move to the USA and you'll sure as hell find that out fast.

Women wanting birth control; that's your real problem isn't it? Loose women, teenage sluts that don't even need their parent's permission.
Plus the fact it's universal... Mr Bawl about discrimination is against universality, Mr X makes a living why should he not pay?

"Good that Poilievre is surging ahead in the polls.  There is hope"
Hope for what? That he'll take away programs? Not that it would help you achieve one iota of that in BC

You missed the point entirely. 

The government just cherry-picked who gets pharmacare and left everyone else with serious medical conditions that require expensive drugs out in the cold.  There are countless people with heart problems, cancer, and various other illnesses that need expensive medications.  Are they not entitled to be treated the same as people with diabetes.  What is wrong with your head man? You don't think that is problem? 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Women wanting birth control;

Again you entirely missed the point in your desperation to throw insults at me.  I know God and Bible really bothers you but there are some things that are more important than your Satanist religion.   

The point of pharmacare is to provide medicines for people with medical problems.  Birth control is not a medical problem.

Next we will be providing suntan lotion for people and exercise bikes.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...