Canada

10394 readers

469 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

Liberals and New Democrats reach a deal on pharmacare (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 2 years ago by sik0fewl@kbin.social to c/canada@lemmy.ca

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The federal Liberal government and the NDP have come to an agreement on pharmacare, clearing the way for the two parties to continue operating under the confidence-and-supply agreement that has helped keep the government in power over the last two years.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I like the word universal. Let's see how universal it is.

[–] blindsight@beehaw.org 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think it's fair to roll it out in stages. Big systems take time to change and implement.

It also makes the most sense to start the roll out with commonly used drugs and lower-income families. Families earning $100K+ don't need immediate relief on drug costs, not the least of which because they likely already have private coverage from their employment.

A single-payer system will obviously be the best and most efficient, but a 5-year roll out (or whatever) is totally reasonable. Big change takes time, and that's fine.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Families earning $100K+ don’t need immediate relief on drug costs, not the least of which because they likely already have private coverage from their employment.

Diabetes is a condition that can even bankrupt people making $100K+ who think they have good medical insurance. Many diabetics reach their employer/pension medical insurance's lifetime maximum and have to pay all costs out of pocket, which can be thousands of dollars a month.

[–] blindsight@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Fair; I should have qualified with "most".

I think the point stands, though; rolling it all out at once likely isn't possible, so they should start with lower income families.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I think you need to consider it to be ultimately universal as a goal healthcare, as I worry you're predisposed to consider any delay to be an abject failure and grounds for dismantling; see: healthcare.

It's a big project for a number of people, so it needs to follow a priority awareness. You may not be in the first group supported, and that needs to be okay. Triage rules always apply, and it's a great problem to have if you don't get seen first.