this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
137 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7747 readers
1040 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Schools / Universities

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

πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. 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
otter
mp3
137
Poilievre won't commit to keeping new social programs like pharmacare (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/canada
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre delivered a fiery speech Thursday that depicted the government's latest budget as a threat to the country's future, and suggested a number of new social programs will get a second look if he leads the next government.

He also claimed Ottawa's push into pharmacare could dismantle private drug insurance and leave Canadians with inferior coverage and higher taxes to pay for it all.

Health Minister Mark Holland, meanwhile, accused the Conservative leader of trying to whip up fear by raising "fake boogeyman" to distract from a program that makes contraceptives and diabetes treatments more affordable for everyone.

While he attacks the Liberals' spending plan, Poilievre is under pressure to explain what he'd cut to fulfil his stated promise to "fix the budget" if he's elected.

In an interview with Radio-Canada, Poilievre was noncommittal on whether child care, dental care and pharmacare would be dismantled by a government led by him β€” but he raised questions about the programs' effectiveness.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zaphod 44 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

My favourite was this bit:

Poilievre said many Canadians already have access to drug coverage through workplace plans that may offer better benefits than those the NDP-backed Liberal plan eventually could offer.

A 2022 Conference Board of Canada report found that about 24.6 million Canadians are already enrolled in private drug plans.

Disappointed in the CBC here. What they should've said is that over 15 million people are not enrolled in a private drug plan, as most people won't do the math and 24.6M people seems like a big number.

Moreover, many of the people most in need of drugs--the elderly, disabled, and those dealing with chronic health conditions--are far less likely to be employed and have access to coverage.

[–] Kichae 25 points 10 months ago

Also, we pay for those insurance plans. They take money out of our paycheques every month to cover premiums. Almost certainly more than most of us pay in taxes to cover federal pharamacare.

The fact that li'l PP pants here can just lie publicly without consequence, and indeed is likely to be rewarded for it, is a crime against us all.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not just that, but private insurance companies are cutting coverage across the board. We're paying more for mediocrity.

[–] Someone 4 points 10 months ago

Even if they weren't making cuts, they're still leeching money out of the system. Whatever percentage of our premiums that goes to executives and profit in general would be much better off as a reinvestment in the public system if not a simple lowering of the cost.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

Tying healthcare to employment is stupid and we see it in the US. It sounds good on paper to cheap bigots who think people are freeloading.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

Wow, I just realised how huge the amount who aren't is. That's over a third! Tabarnak.

[–] wise_pancake 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why don't we have corporations pushing for pharmacare so they don't have to pay for them and reduce cost per employee? It's a competitive advantage for employers if done right.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Walmart for example happly celebrates that its employee benefits are 100% employee paid! They will automatically take the amount off your check. There is no cost to them but they get to claim there are jobs get health benefits.

[–] ILikeBoobies -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

24.6m is more than 15m as CBC is impartial it is better for them to list the larger number

[–] zaphod 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

No, being "impartial" would be highlighting both the number of covered and not covered so the reader appreciates just how many people the UCP wants to leave behind. "Big number is bigger" is not how impartiality is measured.

[–] ILikeBoobies -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

That would be unbiased

You can hide information without being partial to a side. You can’t hide information without being biased

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why isn't CBC reporting on all of the people I didn't murder!? It's a far bigger number

[–] ILikeBoobies 2 points 10 months ago

With cops and firefighters they often do that