Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

[kratz]

Isn't that how NCdts (Naval Cadets) are born?

 

[The Bread Guy]

... Couldn’t possibly have been selected on the entirely cynical calculation of which demographic groups have fallen out with the LPC and need whooing back into the fold?

Someone more cynical than me could see the contraceptives as a bit of a potential wedge-ish issue as well. "See? Team Blue doesn't like this because they want to deny contraception to women - who knoooooooooooooows what's next?"

 

[Halifax Tar]

Someone more cynical than me could see the contraceptives as a bit of a potential wedge-ish issue as well. "See? Team Blue doesn't like this because they want to deny contraception to women - who knoooooooooooooows what's next?"

Or population control ?

 

[Good2Golf]

What an utterly weak pharmacare agreement. Diabetes drugs and contraceptives (I wonder if male condoms will be free everywhere...) is all they could come up with?

Maybe not male condoms, but at least there are male tampons and sanitary napkins at federal washrooms.

 

[Lumber]

Or population control ?

Ok there Fishbone... Hey wait a minute!?

 

[Lumber]

Maybe not male condoms, but at least there are male tampons and sanitary napkins at federal washrooms.

Makes sense. No one needs male condoms in the middle of the day, but transmen might actually need tampons in the middle of the day.

Also, there ARE lots of places where male condoms are available for free during the day. Aboard ships and shacks come to mind.

 

[Good2Golf]

Makes sense. No one needs male condoms in the middle of the day, but transmen might actually need tampons in the middle of the day.

Also, there ARE lots of places where male condoms are available for free during the day. Aboard ships and shacks come to mind.

…the path worn into the floor in the MIR/CDU leading up to the free condoms box on the wall…

 

[Halifax Tar]

Makes sense. No one needs male condoms in the middle of the day, but transmen might actually need tampons in the middle of the day.

Also, there ARE lots of places where male condoms are available for free during the day. Aboard ships and shacks come to mind.

Apparently you've never had an afternoon delight.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm excited to see the timeline to impliment this. Crossing my fingers for a November 2025 rollout.

 

[Remius]

What an utterly weak pharmacare agreement. Diabetes drugs and contraceptives (I wonder if male condoms will be free everywhere...) is all they could come up with? I really think reality came in that medications aren't free and tax dollars aren't limitless.

Diabetes drugs and contraceptives are the first and in the short term. The stated goal is universal coverage long term.

I think the reality is that both JT and JS had to come up with something by this deadline to save face.

The devil will be in the details though about who will be covered and how. As this looks like it will be partnerships with the province I am guessing a lot needs to be hammered out. Contraceptives and diabetes drugs we’re probably the easy button short term.

 

[Remius]

I'm excited to see the timeline to impliment this. Crossing my fingers for a November 2025 rollout.

I bet they launch the first phase fast enough, but the rest of this concept will be some time in the making i would think.

 

[brihard]

Diabetes drugs and contraceptives are the first and in the short term. The stated goal is universal coverage long term.

I think the reality is that both JT and JS had to come up with something by this deadline to save face.

The devil will be in the details though about who will be covered and how. As this looks like it will be partnerships with the province I am guessing a lot needs to be hammered out. Contraceptives and diabetes drugs we’re probably the easy button short term.

I’m waiting to see the details emerge as negotiations continue, but my understanding is the same- this is first steps in a move towards universal pharmacare coverage. My wild ass guess is the WHO list of essential medicines might form part of the basis for coverage, or that alternatively they’ll model coverage off the customary norms for major prescription drug plans.

In general, as we wait for the details, I think that universal access to medication is a policy win. Many people suffer from medical conditions that could be significantly alleviated by medication, and which would let them participate more meaningfully in the workforce, etc. Medication is often no less (or even more) of an essential component of treating or managing conditions; it’s functionally part of basic healthcare.

Pretty much all of us on this site likely haven’t had to worry about paying for prescriptions in a long time. Nearly everyone here has a blue cross or a PSHCP card meaning we don’t need to worry about paying for antibiotics for an infection, or diabetes supplies, or medication to help with depression or anxiety, most of us are able to take it for granted that medication is a part of our healthcare benefits that we just don’t have to worry about, and pharmacists can and will fill prescriptions very quickly when we need them. Many people don’t have that, and will struggle to afford or will go without a part of medical care that we all take for granted.

As someone with great prescription coverage through my employer, and who doesn’t need or use any prescription medication, I’m personally fine with my tax dollars going towards this. This is a smart expenditure, versus a lot of really stupid ones out there. I suspect that a fair bit of the expense will be offset by increased economic activity due to greater workforce participation, fewer missed days of work directly, quicker recoveries, and in some case less spread of bacterial disease because people can now access antibiotics.

 

[YZT580]

I’m waiting to see the details emerge as negotiations continue, but my understanding is the same- this is first steps in a move towards universal pharmacare coverage. My wild ass guess is the WHO list of essential medicines might form part of the basis for coverage, or that alternatively they’ll model coverage off the customary norms for major prescription drug plans.

In general, as we wait for the details, I think that universal access to medication is a policy win. Many people suffer from medical conditions that could be significantly alleviated by medication, and which would let them participate more meaningfully in the workforce, etc. Medication is often no less (or even more) of an essential component of treating or managing conditions; it’s functionally part of basic healthcare.

Pretty much all of us on this site likely haven’t had to worry about paying for prescriptions in a long time. Nearly everyone here has a blue cross or a PSHCP card meaning we don’t need to worry about paying for antibiotics for an infection, or diabetes supplies, or medication to help with depression or anxiety, most of us are able to take it for granted that medication is a part of our healthcare benefits that we just don’t have to worry about, and pharmacists can and will fill prescriptions very quickly when we need them. Many people don’t have that, and will struggle to afford or will go without a part of medical care that we all take for granted.

As someone with great prescription coverage through my employer, and who doesn’t need or use any prescription medication, I’m personally fine with my tax dollars going towards this. This is a smart expenditure, versus a lot of really stupid ones out there. I suspect that a fair bit of the expense will be offset by increased economic activity due to greater workforce participation, fewer missed days of work directly, quicker recoveries, and in some case less spread of bacterial disease because people can now access antibiotics.

while appreciating the sentiment, this is a terrible idea. We can't afford another universal system and judging from other government programmes the drugs you need will be excluded or limited to generic brands only. And it will require another 10,000 civil servants to administer it. Better to reduce income tax or cancel the carbon tax and free up the money in people's hands to purchase their own drugs without limitation.

 

[Quirky]

Another government run program. These have great track records......

 

[Remius]

while appreciating the sentiment, this is a terrible idea. We can't afford another universal system and judging from other government programmes the drugs you need will be excluded or limited to generic brands only. And it will require another 10,000 civil servants to administer it. Better to reduce income tax or cancel the carbon tax and free up the money in people's hands to purchase their own drugs without limitation.

Disagree. It is a policy win and in the long run and from a macro perspective a likely cost saver.

I will agree though that if delivered poorly it could have a lot of upfront costs to run.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I’m waiting to see the details emerge as negotiations continue, but my understanding is the same- this is first steps in a move towards universal pharmacare coverage. My wild ass guess is the WHO list of essential medicines might form part of the basis for coverage, or that alternatively they’ll model coverage off the customary norms for major prescription drug plans.

In general, as we wait for the details, I think that universal access to medication is a policy win. Many people suffer from medical conditions that could be significantly alleviated by medication, and which would let them participate more meaningfully in the workforce, etc. Medication is often no less (or even more) of an essential component of treating or managing conditions; it’s functionally part of basic healthcare.

Pretty much all of us on this site likely haven’t had to worry about paying for prescriptions in a long time. Nearly everyone here has a blue cross or a PSHCP card meaning we don’t need to worry about paying for antibiotics for an infection, or diabetes supplies, or medication to help with depression or anxiety, most of us are able to take it for granted that medication is a part of our healthcare benefits that we just don’t have to worry about, and pharmacists can and will fill prescriptions very quickly when we need them. Many people don’t have that, and will struggle to afford or will go without a part of medical care that we all take for granted.

As someone with great prescription coverage through my employer, and who doesn’t need or use any prescription medication, I’m personally fine with my tax dollars going towards this. This is a smart expenditure, versus a lot of really stupid ones out there. I suspect that a fair bit of the expense will be offset by increased economic activity due to greater workforce participation, fewer missed days of work directly, quicker recoveries, and in some case less spread of bacterial disease because people can now access antibiotics.

I think the idea of universal pharma care is a good and noble idea.

The problem is in financing. But Canadians are easily bought with their own money and rarely see that what they leverage today will have effects on future generation. Our current Medical System is a glowing example of that.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Is the diabetic medicine being used for diabetes or weight loss?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Is the diabetic medicine being used for diabetes or weight loss?

How dare you insinuate people themselves are responsible for, and able to fix, much what ails them...

 

[PuckChaser]

Is the diabetic medicine being used for diabetes or weight loss?

CTV article I saw mentioned Ozempic not being covered for off label use.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The health care system in general is stressed and not meeting demand.

The daycare system in general is stressed and not meeting demand.

We don't know what effects the dental care program is going to have, yet.

I can guess that the result of national pharmacare isn't going to be all roses.