Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pha...993741?cmp=rss
This is really a no-brainer. And you know how I know that?
Ya, the people who hate it have a vested interest in not losing their profits.
One thing I haven't seen in this discussion(and it may be there, I didn't read the report) is that if we save costs on company funded drug plans, those vacated dollars should be recaptured(increase payroll tax?) to pay for pharmacare. The end result is workers wouldn't notice a difference on their paycheck, but coverage would be expanded to be universal, since many people do not have employer plans.
Sadly, I'm sure Danielle Smith will immediately fight this and Albertans will be left behind.
|
I don't think this is as clear as the picture you're painting. Lots and lots of variables.
A national pharmacare based on BC's model may work, but the idea you could just have the same cost as employer funded plans isn't based on reality. The biggest users of medicine aren't in employer funded plans