Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsHealthcare11yrs ago

Should prescription drugs be covered under Canada’s universal healthcare plan?

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

Ideology:

Political party:

Province/Territory:

Reply

 @9F7WQT3Conservativefrom Alberta  answered…2yrs2Y

were broke becaue of tredeau

 @9LJGNWTPeople’s from British Columbia  answered…12mos12MO

No, get private health care coverage, if you want. No coverage, no treatment unless charity of some sort voluntarily steps in. Private coverage options should become competitive but will also underwrite each applicant and possibly deny coverage in some circumstances. In that case, a public form may be needed but paid for by the insured.

 @9RC2Y5XConservativefrom British Columbia  answered…8mos8MO

Only for drugs that people really need, not for drugs that if a person choose to do so could eliminate the use of drugs

 @8TN77R4Conservativefrom British Columbia  answered…4yrs4Y

Some family’s might need it and other people may be Adictid

 @8T99ZQLConservativefrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

No, this will only cause prescription prices to increase, if the prices are capped it will lead to shortages and producers will have no incentive to increase supply.

 @8T352BHConservativefrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

No it should be under provincial control

 @8PNKCBWConservativefrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but only when not covered by a benefit plan such as from an employer.

 @8NW5P3ZChristian Heritagefrom Saskatchewan  answered…4yrs4Y

Yea, but only for medications used to treat serious ailments like cancer and mental illness

 @8NRC9GJConservativefrom Saskatchewan  answered…4yrs4Y

No, but the government should stop the head of these pharmaceutical companies from making the prices of the drug more than 6 time the price of producing.

 @8KV74YYConservativefrom Alberta  answered…4yrs4Y

yes, if the drug is life saving

 @8KN5H7VConservativefrom British Columbia  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but for retired seniors because they have the least income and the greatest needs

 @8JVRR5HConservativefrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

A certain cost and then if it's more the pateint has to pay the rest.

 @8JSPY7RConservativefrom British Columbia  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes if it due to a condition you are born with

 @8JDYBC5Conservativefrom British Columbia  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes to those who can prove they are retired, but only to a high cost threshold

 @8J2LHVMConservativefrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes but only for seniors

 @8DC94RDConservativefrom Alberta  answered…5yrs5Y

Depends on the drug, and the reason for why the drug is needed

 @9C8LZ3BConservativefrom British Columbia  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes but only for certain medications that are not known to lead to addictions like opiods or painkillers

 @97T4JZCConservativefrom Ontario  answered…2yrs2Y

For low income families, and if we can afford it

 @8M8BFWSConservativefrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes if it is keeping the person alive

 @99L7RQQPeople’sfrom Newfoundland  answered…2yrs2Y

No. The entire healthcare industry should be privatized.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Supreme Court Clears The Way For Trump Sentencing

Donald Trump will face sentencing over his New York “hush money” conviction on Friday, after the US Supreme Court declined to grant him a last-minute reprieve.The decision will force the president-elect to face public proceedings in the criminal case that he has fought strenuously to avoid. His lawyers had appealed to the high court on Wednesday to postpone the proceeding, claiming that allowing it to go ahead days before his inauguration would create a “constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security” and interfere with his efforts to get his 34 felony convictions overturned.In a 5-4 decision handed down just hours before the sentencing was set to go ahead in a state court in lower Manhattan, a majority of the justices declined to do so, saying “the burden that sentencing will impose on the president-elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial” especially as Trump was unlikely to face any prison time. They added that any issues with the evidence presented at trial — some of which Trump’s lawyers have claimed was inadmissible — “can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal”.Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals on the bench in refusing to grant Trump’s appeal.Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he appreciated the Supreme Court’s time but vowed to continue fighting the case. “For the sake and sanctity of the Presidency, I will be appealing this case, and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL,” he said.Lawyers representing Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Trump’s sentencing was repeatedly postponed while he mounted his third campaign for the White House and pursued various appeals against his conviction. Last week Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the “hush money” trial in New York earlier this year, finally set a firm date, in order to bring what he called “finality to this matter”.Trump will probably not face any punishment when he is sentenced, however, as the judge previously indicated he would not impose a fine or condemn Trump to prison time.

▲  1619 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Starmer Throws Netanyahu Under the ICC Bus: UK Backs Arrest Warrant for Israeli PM

Sir Keir Starmer has backed the International Criminal Court (ICC) after it issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.When asked about the issue, Sir Keir’s official spokesman said the Government respected the independence of the court.He declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.The spokesman said: “We respect the independence of the ICC, which is the primary institutional institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes in relation to international law.“This Government has been clear that Israel has a right to defend itself in accordance with international law. There is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy and Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah, which are terror groups.“We remain focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire to bring an end to the devastating violence in Gaza.”Under the Conservatives, the British government had told the court it intended to challenge the plans for the arrest warrants.However, weeks after coming to power, Sir Keir’s government reversed that position and said it would not object.Downing Street also declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be welcome to visit Britain in the future.Sir Keir’s spokesman said: “We never comment on future international visits but my position on the Prime Minister’s support for Israel in terms of its right to defend itself in accordance with international law is very clear.”The spokesman repeatedly declined to “go into hypotheticals” about whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.He added: “It’s not up to the Prime Minister to determine other world leaders’ travel schedules. He engages and will continue to engage with the prime minister of Israel in support of Israel’s right to defend itself.”Pressed on what he meant by his comments about the court, the spokesman said: “It means that we respect the independence of the ICC. We respect the fact that the ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern.”The spokesman went on to say the Government’s “focus” remained an end to the violence in the Middle East, which has been ongoing for more than a year after the Oct 7 terror attacks by Hamas.

▲  148 replies