Shownotes
Pharmacare announcement from the NDP
After weeks of leaked deadline ultimatums, Jagmeet Singh announced he'd reached a deal with the Liberals on what he is calling universal pharmacare.
Should people in Canada celebrate this as a first step? Our hosts suggest we hold our applause for the moment.
We go over details of what is included in the deal, what isn't - and exactly what the status of the legislation is. As with all political announcements, we consider the timing and the fact the NDP are describing "intense negotiations" to get to even this point, despite Pharmacare being a part of CASA since March 2022.
___________________
All of our content is free - made possible by the generous sponsorships of our Patrons. If you would like to support us: Patreon
Resources:
Transcripts
Welcome to Rabble Rants. I'm Santiago Hilo Quintero and alongside Jesse McLean, we're going to
Speaker:unpack the stories that have us most riled up and challenge the narratives around them. Well,
Speaker:the NDP and the Liberals made another big announcement this week, apparently. Pharmacare. Pharmacare
Speaker:is what's in the news right now. I know a lot of people are really excited. It sounds very
Speaker:promising. I think the most common comment people are making to me when I express my hesitations
Speaker:is that they see it as a positive first step. And I will allow them that for the moment,
Speaker:but let's get into at least what details we do know. Pharmacare was part of the agreement
Speaker:with the liberals that the NDP made with them back in March of 2022 that in order for them
Speaker:to get along and vote along and for the NDP to prop them up, Pharmacare had to be delivered.
Speaker:And the original deadline was set for December 2023. They came to an agreement to push that
Speaker:off until March. March 1st was the deadline. And so as we approached it, sure enough, they
Speaker:made the announcement that two types of drugs will be covered, a wide range of diabetes medication
Speaker:and possibly the monitoring devices required, as well as contraception. And that again, it's
Speaker:a wide class of contraception that is supposed to be included. This legislation could be tabled
Speaker:in the House of Commons as early as next week. Now in the interviews that Jagmeet has provided,
Speaker:he says it clearly points to single payer system, which means rather than a hodgepodge of a whole
Speaker:bunch of different entities, it would acquire the purchasing power of a single payer. However,
Speaker:we don't know who that payer is. I think there's a lot of speculation that it might be Manulife.
Speaker:But again, the legislation has not seen the light of day, not public day anyway. And the
Speaker:liberals right now are refusing to comment on it until it's tabled. The NDP also admit that
Speaker:there's some details that they're still working out, but no other drugs are gonna be included
Speaker:in this. We know that. They are using the words universal, which would be different than the
Speaker:dental care that they rolled out, sort of. earlier this year that is administered by Manualife.
Speaker:Manualife, folks remember the reason I kind of have maybe disdain dripping when I mentioned
Speaker:them is not just because they're a big insurance company, but also because they recently had
Speaker:to walk back a policy change that was going to see everybody that fell under their insurance
Speaker:would have to get over 200 medications specifically at Shopper's Drug Mart. that obviously didn't
Speaker:go over very well. So it seems that Manual Life has definitely done a good job lobbying all
Speaker:levels of government here in Canada. So I guess that's why we expect them to be responsible
Speaker:for this. But like anything, I'm skeptical. I don't like announcements that lack in real
Speaker:details. And like we've talked about on the show before, timing is everything. None of
Speaker:the timing is ever not tied. to very specific political ends, political goals. You know,
Speaker:there's a lot to unpack about what we do know about PharmaCare, but Santiago, I don't, are
Speaker:you excited? Do you see this as a big momentous announcement? No, I don't have it in me to
Speaker:be so generous, I don't think, and that might feel harsh, but the history of PharmaCare is
Speaker:one that, or at least about the conversation of PharmaCare has been. incredibly frustrating
Speaker:for me to witness. I mean, the liberals have been promising pharmacare on their end for
Speaker:a very long time, you know, decades. I still remember a few years ago when, you know, NDP
Speaker:MP Peter Julian introduced the Privates Members Bill to, what was it, an act to enact an act
Speaker:for pharmacare, along those lines, which was just simply an act to get them to start the
Speaker:process for pharmacare. right, not even an act to introduce pharmacare, just to begin the
Speaker:process of developing a pharmacare act. And that was voted down by every single liberal
Speaker:MP except for Adam Vaughan of Spenna Fort York at the time, former MP of Spenna Fort York,
Speaker:who he abstained, but he was one of the most outspoken critics of it. He was playing all
Speaker:of these political games with it. And I remember like it. It was just the most frustrating thing
Speaker:to witness. But yeah, every single other liberal MP voted it down, just simply beginning the
Speaker:process. They have been playing with the public about pharmacare for far too long and getting
Speaker:away with it. Even though this is one of the most immensely popular policy points that is
Speaker:there anybody out there who's actually opposing this? I mean, most conservatives that I talk
Speaker:to are on board. with the idea of pharmacare. Well, to be fair, they're saying they haven't
Speaker:seen anything. They can't comment and they don't trust these two. That these two often make
Speaker:promises and then deliver anything but. Yeah, I mean, that's fair. Of course it's fair. Ask
Speaker:anybody waiting for this Canadian disability benefit to appear. So it had legislation, it
Speaker:had something that we were all supposed to cheer and get really excited about, but then it's
Speaker:been absent from the budgets. and there's no inclination that it's going to be in the spring
Speaker:budget either. Maybe we'll be surprised. But one of the things about the Pharmacare Act
Speaker:here is although they could table the legislation next week or the week after, Jugmeet has conceded
Speaker:that it's not, there's going to be no money for it in the spring budget. Meaning, this
Speaker:government might not even stand until we actually get a rollout. So there is no rollout of this
Speaker:medication. People with diabetes right now that aren't already covered can not count on getting
Speaker:it at this point. This is not something to tell people that help is on its way, because if
Speaker:there's no money in it right now, then it's not happening yet. Another big beef I have
Speaker:with it is the framing it as it's some sort of announcement that there's a legislation
Speaker:on the table and we're supposed to be grateful. This was a huge... This is supposed to be the
Speaker:bare minimum. It's... One, definitely we could talk about all the drugs that need to be covered,
Speaker:but it was one of the big ticket items in the Casa deal. It was one of the things NDP members
Speaker:had to keep reminding themselves of, the reason that they had propped up this liberal government
Speaker:who is now complicit in genocide and all kinds of inaction over massive amounts of crisis
Speaker:that we've had. And they've had to hold on to that kernel of, well, we're going to get pharmacare
Speaker:out of this. I'm not going to go back to the dental care because still that hasn't been
Speaker:expanded beyond its tiny, tiny rollout of like octogenarians. And this feels the same. It
Speaker:feels like a well timed announcement that they've made a deal that they already made. Because
Speaker:check this out. Alastair McGregor tweets out that it took weeks of intense negotiations
Speaker:to include these two drugs. What the fuck did the agreement? include then if it didn't include
Speaker:any medication? It's pharmacare. And you're telling me you had to go toe to toe with the
Speaker:liberals all this time since 2022 agreement to get them to include medication and pharmacare?
Speaker:Was there ever any agreement or did they literally have to beg them for each and every item and
Speaker:then try to celebrate the crumbs that they were thrown? Even a couple of days before this announcement,
Speaker:The National Post reported that Jagmeet had kind of leaked out that the liberals weren't
Speaker:considering diabetes medication. So are you telling me at some point they were going to
Speaker:announce this as just contraception? They probably realized that would be a nightmare with the
Speaker:conservatives and their toxic masculinity that would just not sell as pharmacare because it's
Speaker:not. But at the same time, they admit that they sat down and only considered covering antibiotics,
Speaker:cholesterol medication, blood pressure medication, and psychological medication such as antidepressants.
Speaker:I wonder if that includes ADHD medication. Sorry selfish, but uh. It's not selfish. This is
Speaker:what everybody's looking for to not have to pay for the drugs that they need that should
Speaker:be included in this so-called universal healthcare. Those drugs that you just mentioned, those
Speaker:aren't being included as of right now. They aren't. They only considered them and then
Speaker:declined. And there has been no word from anyone who spoke about this as it being a first step.
Speaker:Because at no point have they implied that these drugs that I've just mentioned are next. No,
Speaker:no, no. They have emphasized that they did everything they could to simply get these two drugs in.
Speaker:People need to remember that even the Canada Health Act and any other kind of legislation
Speaker:that passes or barely passes or passes without any funding attached to it will quickly be
Speaker:repealed. We'll quickly go by the wayside, particularly if it was some piecemeal shit that's easy to
Speaker:retract. If you gave everybody the drugs that they needed, you could not take them away.
Speaker:But if you're only giving people contraception that they need and now remember that's A lot
Speaker:of folks in Ontario, BC, and soon to be Manitoba are already covered for contraception. And
Speaker:so that is a lot easier to take away. I'm curious about when you say contraception. I'm curious
Speaker:about what's included in that and what maybe isn't included in that, right? Because are
Speaker:different various kinds of IUDs included in that, as an example? Is Plan B included in
Speaker:that? What are we talking about when we say contraceptive? Yes, if you are listening to
Speaker:drug meat saying all of those, it is a wide range of contraception. So to be fair, and
Speaker:the same goes for diabetes, it's not just insulin. So they are attempting to cover the drugs that
Speaker:are being covered as universally as possible. So Plan B is what some people call the morning
Speaker:after pill. That is obviously very contentious with conservatives. And I don't think that
Speaker:was specifically mentioned. I mean, right now we're at a moment where the conservatives have
Speaker:the majority of provinces across the country save for places like BC which aren't doing
Speaker:much better under an NDP government. But anyways, using that power they have been eroding healthcare
Speaker:left and right. And this is what we get from the coalition of federal liberals and federal
Speaker:NDPs. I mean, if you compare what the conservatives are taking away versus what we're getting here,
Speaker:there's no way to spin this as the people are coming out in any way as a net gain. We're
Speaker:losing more and more. We got a little, it's like four steps backwards, one step forward.
Speaker:And we're supposed to take this as if that one step forward means we're moving forward. I
Speaker:cannot possibly look at it that way. I can't. Pharmacare, first of all, is not this unusual
Speaker:like utopian thing. It's pretty standard in many of the countries that have universal health
Speaker:care. If anything, Canada is one of, if not the worst country that has so-called universal
Speaker:health care when it comes to covering pharmaceuticals. It is a ridiculous system that we're currently
Speaker:under and it is the most logical thing in the world to introduce pharma care. It will save
Speaker:Canadians so much money. I mean, we talk about essential goods,
Speaker:as something to profit off of is some of the most despicable, evil shit that I can think
Speaker:of. These companies are fucking massive and you to, and, and to make matters worse, they
Speaker:often rely on public money to beat for the development of this medication that they then go and sell
Speaker:for enormous profits. So they're fine using the people's money, all they want to create
Speaker:the medicine. Because there are people who are like, oh yeah, you know, they charge all this
Speaker:much, but they need it for development. No, they fucking don't. And they shouldn't. And
Speaker:we should be funding the development of medication, because that is one of the most logical things
Speaker:to fund. It is an absolute good, but then making profit off of it, I can't imagine. I cannot
Speaker:imagine how fucked up that is. So no, I'm not gonna give them their celebrations. I'm not.
Speaker:not fucking enough. It's not. I don't know why people celebrate this shit. I'm serious. And
Speaker:I understand the need for victories. This is not your victory. This is a backroom deal by
Speaker:two politicians and they made it exactly what they wanted. That is not a victory we earned.
Speaker:We can find victories in other places because you don't celebrate people doing their job
Speaker:to the absolute bare minimum, especially when those folks are beyond being humble. You know,
Speaker:they're standing up there telling you to thank them and how hard they worked for these crumps.
Speaker:Why do you need to celebrate them? These are the powerful. They owe us so much fucking more
Speaker:than this. And why are you content with a baby step? You see them sending $9 billion to Ukraine.
Speaker:You see them sending weapons to Israel. You see them cutting checks to Loblaws. You see
Speaker:Manulife getting a cut. They are not gonna do this without profit. So there's profit built
Speaker:into the system, the dental system. I imagine this pharmacare is gonna have mass amounts
Speaker:of profit built into it. And so you know the money is there to do this properly, to make
Speaker:sure that cholesterol, fucking antibiotics. You know people need antibiotics to stay alive
Speaker:when they have infections, right? Like that is a life-saving medication, just like many
Speaker:others. Just the psychological drugs as well. There's no reason to cherry-pick medications
Speaker:and start off slowly. That is a fucking myth sold to you so you will be okay and celebrate
Speaker:these bare, bare... Minimums that in the end aren't the transformative thing that these
Speaker:people are selling it to and so rather than calling them on it in this moment So many people
Speaker:are giving them that little bit right? They're giving them that media space They're giving
Speaker:them that clout because they feel like it is a crumb and they're so desperate for crumbs
Speaker:No now is the time to look them in the eye and say how could you especially true to right?
Speaker:Especially the liberals who didn't even want to cover what any drugs after all these years
Speaker:are promising it they were what? just going to cover the birth control pill? Was that the
Speaker:plan? Look at them and say, how the fuck could you decide antibiotics weren't necessary for
Speaker:people? And, you know, let's talk about the state of the Canadian economy for a second,
Speaker:right? Because people talk a lot about the gig economy. You know what the gig economy doesn't
Speaker:have? It doesn't have a healthcare plan. A lot of people working precarious work, part-time
Speaker:work, contract work, things that don't carry with them benefits. Meaning they don't have
Speaker:any coverage for medication. And the average Canadian already, I mean, this is old numbers.
Speaker:I have no idea what it is now. I just know that it's worse. But like pre-pandemic numbers were
Speaker:that the average Canadian doesn't have enough for a $200 emergency. My prescription medication
Speaker:alone would cost me upwards of $300 a month. I do not know how people are expected to pay
Speaker:for their medication right now. This is something that, like, if anybody had a... basic understanding
Speaker:of how economics works. This is a fucking knife in the Canadian economy. Because having people
Speaker:not be able to afford things, having to pay, but they have to, they have to buy their medicine.
Speaker:So they're having to make serious sacrifices to be able to afford their medicine, which
Speaker:then means that they have less spending money to go into the Canadian economy. That is horrible,
Speaker:economically speaking. That is not how you create a healthy economy.
Speaker:A universal pharmacare, it puts us in the position to one, if we're going the route of, you know,
Speaker:single payer and stuff, we can negotiate the cheapest possible medication prices from these
Speaker:companies, buying them in bulk. That's one potential option. And it's the reason at the moment why
Speaker:Canadian healthcare is a fraction of the price that it is in the US, which is just an example
Speaker:of how bad this can get if we let it spin out of control. But then the other thing is that
Speaker:You know, when it comes to the patents, patents are not these ironclad things. Governments
Speaker:can override patents if it's in the public's interest. We can just snatch that up and start
Speaker:creating publicly funded generic versions of medications. And then we can set the price
Speaker:to whatever it costs to make it. And really, You know, when we have right now, you know,
Speaker:I think of like the LCBO as an example, we have these government run stores for alcohol. Why
Speaker:the hell are we relying on private pharmacies like shoppers who is, you know, owned by who?
Speaker:The Westons. Because of course it is. Why are we relying on private pharmacies? No, no, no
Speaker:pharmacies. We should have public pharmacies. Why do we not have public pharmacies? I need
Speaker:somebody to explain that to me. It's getting to the point where we're not even gonna have,
Speaker:we don't have public family doctors. Much of our health care is privately delivered. Yeah,
Speaker:it's like, you know, we look at all of this and then we look at what's being proposed here.
Speaker:And you know what, I do celebrate. It's important that diabetes medication is covered, you know,
Speaker:that is essential and it is something that is a consistent cause. And the alternative that
Speaker:we could live in is in the States where remember that fucker, I forget his name, but like there
Speaker:was this one guy who like bought up the patent for a diabetes medication and he increased
Speaker:the price like crazy. Which by the way was created by a Canadian at the, Frederick Banting was
Speaker:it? At the University of Toronto back in the day. And he sold the patent for a dollar because
Speaker:he thought it was so important that nobody should be able to profit off of this. that it should
Speaker:be in the public's interest. And it was created at U of T, I think it was publicly funded,
Speaker:but my point being the founder of Insulin did not want this to be something that was profited
Speaker:off of. I am capable of both celebrating something and criticizing something at the same time.
Speaker:We are not one dimensional people here. I am not okay looking at like what the options are,
Speaker:what the possibilities are. I'm not okay. with the progress being made because they, decades,
Speaker:it's been decades of listening to this. When exactly are we going to get actual PharmaCare?
Speaker:Piyapoliev is looking like he's going to win the next election for the conservatives. The
Speaker:liberals are polling horribly right now. When, like what exactly do they expect is going to
Speaker:happen? I feel like the diabetes medication is in there to help secure it. to a degree
Speaker:because you'd have to look like a real heartless fuck at that point to remove people's medication
Speaker:if eventually it does end up in the budget. But one thing that I should have mentioned,
Speaker:two things really, to be fair to the NDP, even though it makes me cringe to do it. Surely
Speaker:this would not be tabled next week if it wasn't for the NDP and if it wasn't for the deal.
Speaker:Because I think between the generations of promises for pharmacare that's failed through the liberals.
Speaker:The fact they didn't even mention it in their last election, almost like they had given up
Speaker:on promising it. And then knowing that they fought tooth and nail to not even have diabetes
Speaker:medication in there tells you that you wouldn't have anything really if it wouldn't have been
Speaker:for the NDP pushing this particular thing. And diabetes medication and contraception are unique
Speaker:in that, not unique, but for poor folks. They are very important. Diabetes is far more prevalent
Speaker:amongst low income people. It's also more prevalent in racialized communities. Contraception is
Speaker:also very important to poor people. It impacts people a lot, unwanted pregnancies. Not having
Speaker:access to abortion or contraception is a barrier in Canada, even though we have the rights.
Speaker:It does become. financial barrier to folks. So these two types of drugs will definitely,
Speaker:definitely make a positive impact in our communities. Diabetes is extremely common in Indigenous
Speaker:communities in Canada. Like it's a massive, massive issue in rural Indigenous communities.
Speaker:And like there's no doubt that is desperately, desperately needed there. Just wanted to mention
Speaker:because a lot of people do not know just how big of an issue that is. It's a... I mean,
Speaker:people are out here losing their limbs constantly in flying communities because of diabetes.
Speaker:And they have necks and they don't have doctors in these communities. And it's a big issue.
Speaker:No, yeah, there has to... It has to be said. There's definitely some pluses. But if we aren't
Speaker:holding our politicians' feet to the fire and demanding more, that's all you're ever going
Speaker:to get. Quite frankly. In this moment in time, the NDP, I'm speaking from what I would do,
Speaker:I guess, but I would want to see an NDP that was willing to burn everything to the ground
Speaker:if they were not going to get a true PharmaCare. There's no argument in saying that this is
Speaker:not possible because, as I said, it is an absolute benefit to the Canadian economy. It literally
Speaker:is people's lives here. I would want to see the NDP say...
Speaker:We go to an election and we see how you do against Pierre Polyev. Because your polling is in the
Speaker:fucking mud. Pierre Polyev is polling at beyond majority numbers. Let's see if you want to
Speaker:go into an election right now. We're getting PharmaCare. The people deserve PharmaCare.
Speaker:There is no negotiation. That's what I would want to see. Because that's how important of
Speaker:an issue this is. That is a wrap on another episode of Blueprints of Disruption. Thank
Speaker:you for joining us. Also a very big thank you to the producer of our show, Santiago Halu-Quintero.
Speaker:Blueprints of Disruption is an independent production operated cooperatively. You can follow us on
Speaker:Twitter at BPEofDisruption. If you'd like to help us continue disrupting the status quo,
Speaker:please share our content. And if you have the means, consider becoming a patron. Not only
Speaker:does our support come from the progressive community, so does our content. So reach out to us and
Speaker:let us know what or who we should be amplifying. So until next time, keep disrupting.
