Poilievre won't commit to keeping new social programs like pharmacare
Poilievre won't commit to keeping new social programs like pharmacare
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 — but he raised questions about the programs' effectiveness.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
Not just that, but private insurance companies are cutting coverage across the board. We're paying more for mediocrity.
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.
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.
Wow, I just realised how huge the amount who aren't is. That's over a third! Tabarnak.
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.
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.
24.6m is more than 15m as CBC is impartial it is better for them to list the larger number
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.
That would be unbiased
You can hide information without being partial to a side. You can’t hide information without being biased
Why isn't CBC reporting on all of the people I didn't murder!? It's a far bigger number
With cops and firefighters they often do that