Quote:
Originally Posted by flamesfever
Eighty percent (80%) of our population are already covered for pharmacare. I believe the remaining 20% can be covered in a much less financially onerous way than providing free drugs to everyone, and being paid out of the public purse.
I guess I don't see the degree of health benefits in providing free drugs to the 20% as you do. A high portion of the 20% are younger, healthy people who don't really require all that many drugs.
Also, have you accounted for the disruption to the private insurance companies that presently provide the pharmacare funding?
I guess I am more concerned in the funding of our present healthcare situation. I have suffered from cancer, and I know about the agonizing period when you wait for treatment.
|
80% are covered to what extent? Again how is 20% of the population a negligible amount? If we added 20% more doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc we’d be in far better shape. 20% is huge when we’re talking about this kind of scale.
What disruption to the private insurance companies? Why would that even be a concern?
Again, funding preventative healthcare doesn’t mean you can’t fund the present healthcare situation. That’s a false dichotomy. Give the vast amount of money flowing through the government, why do you believe the choice has to be between these two things? Wouldn’t you argue, if you cared about everything you say you care about, that the government should be focused on both?