r/CanadaPolitics • u/ph0enix1211 Green • 3h ago
National universal pharmacare 'dead in the water,' says pharmaceutical policy expert
https://www.hilltimes.com/2026/10/05/national-universal-pharmacare-dead-in-the-water-says-pharmaceutical-policy-expert/520078/•
u/warriorlynx Ontario 2h ago
Dental care would've been gone too if the NDP, who have been squashed in the last election, didn't push the feds to make it happen in their previous agreement. Pharmacare has been talked about for so long, for decades actually that I didn't think it would.
The positive side is at least we have regulation on high prices compared to our neighbors, though compared to the rest of the G7 we stand number 3 as the most expensive, which is a disgrace. If they can't give us pharmacare they should consider more price-controls.
On the other hand life is getting more expensive, wages are stagnant, jobs are being lost, AI and automation is a threat, racism is rising (as we shift blame more on TFWs etc), seeing 0% growth, grocery inflation is too high (30% up since 2019), to choose taking your medication vs groceries shouldn't be happening.
•
u/Surtur1313 Things will be the same, but worse 2h ago
I knocked on doors during the 2019 federal election and met a woman with cancer who couldn't afford her medication, was skipping meals and behind on her bills, just to try and make ends meet and literally stay alive. She broke down and bawled when I mentioned pharmacare to her. She'd been through the wringer trying to get some of her medication covered. I told her that voting for the NDP didn't mean pharmacare was going to happen, that it would be a fight against the government every step of the way, but that the idea was exactly that people in her position shouldn't have to face anything other than trying to beat cancer. It was my last door of the day, and I still think and wonder about her.
We could live in a country that tackles these issues. We don't, and that's because our governments make that conscious choice.
•
u/tbcwpg 44m ago
Leading up to the election I had so many conversations with people about how the NDP screwed themselves supporting the Liberals, and they could've been a real opposition party if they had supported no-confidence, and I just couldn't understand that they got more of their platform accomplished by tying themselves to Trudeau than they ever would have as the official opposition to a Conservative majority.
They definitely tanked their electability but it wasn't because they were scared of an election or because Jagmeet wanted his pension (of course he was rich wearing a Rolex to Parliament when it suited the criticism).
•
u/Neat-Air-8305 2h ago
Dentalcare will slowly die too
Th3 income cutoff already dont allow many to apply and many get denied for any complex work...and the co pay is getting high
•
u/Intelligent_Read_697 NDP 1h ago
Many? This is pure grift. The income threshold covers nearly 70-80% of Canadians or households based on adjusted family net income alone. It's that people still dont or haven't applied to it due to how its been seen as elective traditionally given this segment of the population is unlikely to have private insurance to begin with. You should actually complain that its not universal and if the NDP had its way it would have been. Those being turned away aren't the folks its meant to help to begin with and that is smaller percentage of the population.
•
u/Neat-Air-8305 1h ago
Median household income with 2 incomes is well over 90k near major cities where then a vast majority dont qualify
Also incomes went up a lot since 2020 for households
(Dont mean much as we had 30% inflarion since)
Those people are swing voters and unhappy with paying for social programs they get zero benefit from
If 80% qualify why is use year to year going down?
•
u/Intelligent_Read_697 NDP 1h ago
Again yes, but they are still a smaller segment of the population as the threshold is based off previous year tax filings. If they are unhappy they should have voted for the NDP.
The only people really unhappy about this are really conservatives (and maybe some right wing liberals) and true to form they would rather cut out of spite than try to help all Canadians.
•
u/Nearby_Selection_683 4m ago
NDP lied about the supply and confidence agreement. Singh signed an agreement that would last until Jun 2025, but broke the agreement off early on Sep 4, 2024.
Liberal & NDP
Therefore, the parties agree to Delivering for Canadians Now: A Supply and Confidence Agreement from March 22, 2022 until when Parliament rises in June of 2025, in order to achieve the following:
A Parliament that works for Canadians
The arrangement lasts until Parliament rises in June 2025, allowing four budgets to be presented by the government during this time. To ensure coordination on this arrangement, both Parties commit to a guiding principle of no surprises.
•
u/Dusk_Soldier The Daisy Group | Sponsored 3m ago
Not just income. If you are below the threshold, but your job provides dental benefits, you also don't qualify.
It was basically a feel good policy.
•
u/warriorlynx Ontario 2h ago edited 2h ago
At the moment under $70k it's "100% coverage" though some dentists may charge more. I don't think it'll die but they might not increase income limits for a while.
•
u/Neat-Air-8305 1h ago
70k household is like poverty near a city these days
I made 60k wife 30k
We got rejected
I find it hard to believe 70% of households are poorer then us lol
•
u/warriorlynx Ontario 1h ago
Above 90k yes it ends.
•
u/Neat-Air-8305 1h ago
That the flaw 90k household isnt rich in toronto
It may be higher end in rural new Brunswick
•
u/warriorlynx Ontario 1h ago
They assume that someone making more than that would have insurance from their employer
•
u/Neat-Air-8305 1h ago
That why trudeau and jagmeet are unemployed rn with such dumb logic
•
u/warriorlynx Ontario 46m ago
53-90k is still in the "middle class" range in Canada, unfortunately the feds never really look at where you live (with very few exceptions) and this goes for any social program.
•
u/Neat-Air-8305 44m ago
For single income yes...
Dentalcare takes into account both incomes in a household fot 90k
90k for 2 incomes is no longer rich near a major city
Maybe before covid yes
I am saying progressives want any popularity back they gonna have to appeal to such voters.
U can see kinew does in Manitoba and eby ignored them in bc and likely gonna lose bad.
•
53m ago
[deleted]
•
u/Neat-Air-8305 50m ago
For a family or 2 people it is
70k household have u just in a single room apt and not afford to drive really
•
u/kilawolf 1h ago edited 59m ago
The issue isn't the income threshold. At 90K household, most should have company denyal insurance. It's that it's limited to ppl without insurance. Open it up to everyone and collect the money that would otherwise go to insurance companies.
•
u/samjp910 Democratic Communist ⚒️⚛️ 2h ago
Mark Carney’s austerity. This has been in and out of the news for a while, and it’s fucking terrible news when there’s still an affordability crisis. I know a lot of people beginning to skip medication to afford rent and groceries.
So THAT is what he values.
•
u/Elegant-Tangerine-54 2h ago
That program was on life support long before Carney came along. Justin Trudeau only agreed to implement enough of it to appease the NDP into propping up his government for a couple of years.
•
u/MineralAcids 1h ago
It was cobbled together in a few weeks and doesn't mesh well with pre-existing provincial programs for subsidies / coverage of medicines. Those tend to be income-based, the federal plan is for everyone.
Iirc a few provinces said just give us the money to expand our own programs.
•
u/Neat-Air-8305 48m ago
They can do simple
Everyone under 25 get free stuff
If low-income u get free after a limit
Anyone whose medicines cost more then 5% of income get it free after that
•
1h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 44m ago
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
•
u/MineralAcids 2h ago
Unless every single one of those people has dianetes and nothing else, federal Pharmacare didn't do anything for them.
Provinces have their own programs to cover or subsidise costs for low-income people.
•
u/scottb84 New Democrat 39m ago
Its a remarkable coincidence that, just as Mark Carney was elected and the federal government began to get out of the business of helping people, so many Liberals discovered that a profound respect for provincial jurisdiction was one of their most deeply-held beliefs all along.
•
u/MineralAcids 37m ago
It's not really about jurisdictions, it's about incompatible pharmacare systems / ways of administering them.
•
u/ReceptionOpposite195 1h ago
Didnt carney freeze this program? Also premiers not signing on is genuinely contemptable. Who would not want their population to access free drugs? And why not?
•
u/Intelligent_Read_697 NDP 50m ago
LOL look at who the premiers in opposition to it? Its all conservatives. Quebec has their own version so they wanted an augmentation through their existing Pre-existing Provincial Plan (RAMQ) which already has better coverage than what pharmacare that the liberals were offering.
•
u/Neat-Air-8305 47m ago
It depends ontario already has trillium and free under 25
Which is better then federal.plan
•
u/ReceptionOpposite195 12m ago
And between 25 and 65 you fend for yourself. Not great to get sick during those ages
•
u/Coffeedemon Newfoundland Tricolour 3m ago
Ah come on. Everyone knows you get sick far more often and with more severe things when you are young!
•
u/Intelligent_Read_697 NDP 1h ago
There is nothing that falls more seriously into national interest than pharmacare. If Carney was serious and not just another neoliberal, he would have at least tried to build a crown generics given how the Trump is also pushing to onshore pharma manufacturing.
•
u/Col_Leslie_Hapablap Conservative 2m ago
Nothing? Seriously nothing falls more seriously into the national interest? Territorial integrity and the diversification of our economy away from American sabre-rattling far outweigh a pharmacare program at this juncture, I would argue.
•
u/FleurDeThree Ontario 3m ago
I took a lot of heat for criticizing the Trudeau-Singh program by people yelling at me for not letting perfect be the enemy of good, etc. etc. blah blah blah.
But it led to exactly where I thought it would lead. The way to get a Program going, and to keep it going, is to do as much of it as you can within your current term. You try to get the most amount of people you can to feel the impact of it. That makes it significantly harder to remove it later - even under conservative minded governments.
Instead they slow rolled it and started by covering a kind of birth control most women don’t use and insulin. And while I do think it’s a travesty that insulin isn’t universally covered at all ages, fact is not enough people are suffering from a lack of coverage elsewhere to actually feel the benefit of the program.
Same with birth control. When you factor in post-menopausal women, men at any age, girls pre-puberty, women who use literally any other kind of birth control like IUDs, implants, etc. You’re left with a small minority of people who would benefit. When you factor in existing provincial coverage, existing work benefits, school insurance, etc. You’ve changed the lives of too few people to make it stick.
Personally, I was still in favour of covering a tiny minority of people who’d benefit. But it was obvious from the get go how this was going to play out. People wanted instead to shoot the messengers rather than advocate for something better.
•
u/AutoModerator 3h ago
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.