In an interview with CBC’s Rosemary Barton Live airing Sunday, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said weeks of talks between the two sides have produced draft legislation that will set out the framework for a national pharmacare program and, in the short term, new coverage for contraception and diabetes treatment.
Under the terms of the confidence-and-supply agreement signed in March 2022, the Liberal government committed to passing legislation — a Canada Pharmacare Act — by the end of 2023, in exchange for NDP support on key votes in the House of Commons.
As the new deadline approached, Singh’s public pressure on the government became louder — and private grumbling and threats leaked out to reporters.
Singh said Friday that, by including coverage for contraception and diabetes, the pharmacare agreement goes beyond the original terms of the deal between the two parties.
Speaking to reporters in Nova Scotia on Thursday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government is “committed to moving forward on creating a framework for pharmacare, because in a wealthy country like Canada, nobody should have to choose between buying groceries or buying much-needed medication.”
Asked about the deal on Friday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre criticized the government’s record and said he wants to see the details of the plan.
The original article contains 497 words, the summary contains 208 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I eagerly await the details, because if it’s only diabetes and birth control that’s pretty disappointing, especially considering those are two issues that are largely (but not entirely) the product of an unhealthy life style.
It’d be nice if the government encouraged healthy living more than it encouragedmedicating unhealthy living.
The fact that I make a personal effort to not be a burden on this system yet I have to pay for people who purposely make themselves burdens.
Quite honestly, I don’t mind paying for certain accidents and injuries (those that are the result of criminal or civil liability should be paid for by the liable party not the taxpayer) and general aging, but when someone spends a few decades eating themselves into Type 2 diabetes I fail to see why the taxpayer should be on the hook for their medication or the results of them not having medication.
If you had read my comment in it’s entirety you’d have seen that I’m not opposed to paying for things such as random accidents. But something like Type 2 Diabetes isn’t a random accident and is entirely preventable by the vast majority of people who have it.
I meant in more of a way that we should hold those responsible for causing accidents before using tax money if it’s reasonable to do so.
Ex. If a drunk driver hurts someone, make the drunk driver personally liable for payments until they are bankrupt before using tax dollars to fill the gap. Or if someone gets hurt at work, back the company responsible until it is bankrupt, and make the injured party the #1 creditor during bankruptcy proceedings before using tax dollars.
I never said I was opposed to helping others, but I see no reason why I should help people who aren’t willing to put forth some effort to help themselves
Insurance companies are the middle man. Go find me any country that’s implemented single payer health care/dental/drugs and been more wasteful and siphoned more than countries with private insurance. It’s literally impossible. Insurance companies are meant to siphon money, that’s what profit is. Governments don’t have that profit motive so all the money goes to care.
Miss me with that “government is inconstant, I only give my money directly to shareholders crap”
Lol, like the government doesn’t siphon off money. I’m no fan of insurance companies either but I’d rather them than the government if I was forced to choose.
Oh yeah health insurance companies famously siphon off less money than government single payer system. That’s why all countries with subtle payer systems spend less money and are healthier overall than countries that use private insurance. Oh wait, what’s that? The EXACT opposite is true everywhere in the entire world? Could it be possible that you’re wrong about government corruption in Canada? How could that be, you seem like such a rational well adjusted person. So weird, it must be a coincidence, or some kind of socialist conspiracy where socialism makes everyone live longer and spend less money but somehow evil.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
3-4 months late isn’t too bad of a delay in the context of Canadian politics. Good job Trudeau and Singh.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In an interview with CBC’s Rosemary Barton Live airing Sunday, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said weeks of talks between the two sides have produced draft legislation that will set out the framework for a national pharmacare program and, in the short term, new coverage for contraception and diabetes treatment.
Under the terms of the confidence-and-supply agreement signed in March 2022, the Liberal government committed to passing legislation — a Canada Pharmacare Act — by the end of 2023, in exchange for NDP support on key votes in the House of Commons.
As the new deadline approached, Singh’s public pressure on the government became louder — and private grumbling and threats leaked out to reporters.
Singh said Friday that, by including coverage for contraception and diabetes, the pharmacare agreement goes beyond the original terms of the deal between the two parties.
Speaking to reporters in Nova Scotia on Thursday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government is “committed to moving forward on creating a framework for pharmacare, because in a wealthy country like Canada, nobody should have to choose between buying groceries or buying much-needed medication.”
Asked about the deal on Friday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre criticized the government’s record and said he wants to see the details of the plan.
The original article contains 497 words, the summary contains 208 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
It’s a good start.
Now that the framework is in place I hope additional medications can be added in the future.
I further hope that the next conservative government that gets elected doesn’t scrap the whole thing .
I eagerly await the details, because if it’s only diabetes and birth control that’s pretty disappointing, especially considering those are two issues that are largely (but not entirely) the product of an unhealthy life style.
It’d be nice if the government encouraged healthy living more than it encouragedmedicating unhealthy living.
Birth control is needed because of an unhealthy lifestyle?
But more importantly what gives you the right to dictate other people’s lifestyles?
I think universal healthcare is a great investment into our citizens and I welcome this as a first step.
I hope the momentum from this carries us into a new age of prosperity.
The fact that I make a personal effort to not be a burden on this system yet I have to pay for people who purposely make themselves burdens.
Quite honestly, I don’t mind paying for certain accidents and injuries (those that are the result of criminal or civil liability should be paid for by the liable party not the taxpayer) and general aging, but when someone spends a few decades eating themselves into Type 2 diabetes I fail to see why the taxpayer should be on the hook for their medication or the results of them not having medication.
You think you’re better than everyone else, I get it.
Even if you are and you’re not just wearing rose coloured glasses about your own life what about random accidents?
I think this is the right first step and I hope people like you get outnumbered by people like me who are based in a little more reality.
If you had read my comment in it’s entirety you’d have seen that I’m not opposed to paying for things such as random accidents. But something like Type 2 Diabetes isn’t a random accident and is entirely preventable by the vast majority of people who have it.
You said ‘certain accidents and injuries’ as if you want the ability to dictate what medical services other people get.
There’s a really easy way for you to get the medical system you want and it is to simply move to the states.
I don’t think we need to recreate their failed system here.
I meant in more of a way that we should hold those responsible for causing accidents before using tax money if it’s reasonable to do so.
Ex. If a drunk driver hurts someone, make the drunk driver personally liable for payments until they are bankrupt before using tax dollars to fill the gap. Or if someone gets hurt at work, back the company responsible until it is bankrupt, and make the injured party the #1 creditor during bankruptcy proceedings before using tax dollars.
Or if they’re fat or enjoy sex you can charge them until they’re bankrupt because you don’t want to pay your tax dollars for them?
Go to the states and stop complaining.
Move to Texas, you only have to pay for yourself.
I never said I was opposed to helping others, but I see no reason why I should help people who aren’t willing to put forth some effort to help themselves
It’s so disappointing to see Canadians becoming so selfish. What ever happened to helping your neighbor and others?
I’d rather cut out the middle man and do it myself than have government bureaucrats siphon off money deciding who’s worthy and who’s not
Insurance companies are the middle man. Go find me any country that’s implemented single payer health care/dental/drugs and been more wasteful and siphoned more than countries with private insurance. It’s literally impossible. Insurance companies are meant to siphon money, that’s what profit is. Governments don’t have that profit motive so all the money goes to care.
Miss me with that “government is inconstant, I only give my money directly to shareholders crap”
Lol, like the government doesn’t siphon off money. I’m no fan of insurance companies either but I’d rather them than the government if I was forced to choose.
Oh yeah health insurance companies famously siphon off less money than government single payer system. That’s why all countries with subtle payer systems spend less money and are healthier overall than countries that use private insurance. Oh wait, what’s that? The EXACT opposite is true everywhere in the entire world? Could it be possible that you’re wrong about government corruption in Canada? How could that be, you seem like such a rational well adjusted person. So weird, it must be a coincidence, or some kind of socialist conspiracy where socialism makes everyone live longer and spend less money but somehow evil.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health-expenditure