Politics, Religion & Controversial

Ontario free pharmacare for people under age 25

  • Last Updated:
  • Jul 1st, 2018 12:58 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
Dec 28, 2005
1899 posts
488 upvotes
Blanche123 wrote:
May 1st, 2017 3:07 pm
Also, the purpose of the drug prescribed is also a factor as strange as it seems. I had a one-off but it was not covered.
Of course the purpose matters. Drugs have Health Canada approved indications. If a medicine was prescribed and was not covered by the ODB, than your physician prescribed it off-label. It is unfortunate, but the ODB should absolutely not be covering off-label use as it opens up a huge can of worms with respect to liability and abuse.
Blanche123 wrote:
May 1st, 2017 3:07 pm
I have another prescription that was written in the late fall but the meds are on the shortage list and will not be available until perhaps May - if then since they were supposed to be available in early March. By the time the medication is available, depending on the cost of it, I would probably be better off just paying for it since the annual $100 is due in Aug. No point paying twice.
That is a little talked about issue when it comes to generic manufacturers. Frequently, they do not have a consistent supply like branded manufacturers and in some jurisdictions, governments tender increasing the risk of shortages. The solution is to ensure there are multiple suppliers, even if it means paying more to get supply from the branded manfuacturer.
Deal Addict
Dec 28, 2005
1899 posts
488 upvotes
hugh_da_man wrote:
May 1st, 2017 6:32 pm
There are added costs to health plans through employers and people will save money using this plan.

It's not corporate welfare anymore than our universal health care is corporate welfare. The reason for everyone having access is similar to why I don't have the option to obtain private health care in most places in Canada. You create a better universal system by having everyone in it. If some people are able to have a private plan that covers more then you create a two-tiered system that benefits the rich. I think their goal will be to do away with coverage for children and young adults on their parents' plan.
Counter point: there are no truly universal plans on the planet. There is always supplemental insurance coverage. Due to the reality of fixed budgets, universal plans trend towards the lowest common denominator. Paradoxically, you are likely to have a reduction in the number of drugs covered under a universal plan. There is good theoretical reasons as to why a public/private split is ideal. Different groups value medicines differently. An employer has a far higher willingness to pay for something that keeps a person from being absent from work than a drug plan that only covers seniors. It's why Canada's existing pharmacare system actually works remarkably well (3rd highest access to medicines in the world with costs lower than the G7 median).
Deal Addict
Dec 28, 2005
1899 posts
488 upvotes
blaznazn22 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2018 9:18 am
Haha theft my ass. Government is paying you your wage, literally. Without the commie handouts of patents, IP, and trademarks, many of the monopoly corporations people work for would not exist. This is the reason taxation exists in the first place. The government literally protects your job from free market competition in exchange for a cut.
Haha what a grossly misinformed understanding of intellectual property and pharmaceuticals. History shows that tax payors do not have the appetite to shoulder the risk and expense of pharmaceutical discovery, clinical trials and commercialization. Apotex was founded on compulsory licensing because the government had no appetite to fund pharmaceutical discovery and wanted to free ride on investments made by private companies.

Rather than pharmaceutical companies not existing without patents, we would not have new medicines without these companies. It is a interdependent relationship.
Temp. Banned
Apr 15, 2011
3146 posts
358 upvotes
Scarborough
unshavenyak wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2018 10:12 am
Haha what a grossly misinformed understanding of intellectual property and pharmaceuticals. History shows that tax payors do not have the appetite to shoulder the risk and expense of pharmaceutical discovery, clinical trials and commercialization. Apotex was founded on compulsory licensing because the government had no appetite to fund pharmaceutical discovery and wanted to free ride on investments made by private companies.

Rather than pharmaceutical companies not existing without patents, we would not have new medicines without these companies. It is a interdependent relationship.

without patents, IP and whatnot, pharma would not create new drugs. But others, those in academics still would create these drugs. The experiments would still occur, and those people suffering from conditions would subject themselves to the tests willingly. Drugs would be cheaper for everyone without the scam artist pharmaceuticals and government regulations. I don't know whats more wrong morally. Letting human trials occur without any government interference, or corporations with patents withholding lifesaving drugs from tens of millions of people world wide. I think a free market system would be more fair to be honest, just going by the numbers.
Deal Addict
Dec 28, 2005
1899 posts
488 upvotes
blaznazn22 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2018 10:46 am
without patents, IP and whatnot, pharma would not create new drugs. But others, those in academics still would create these drugs. The experiments would still occur, and those people suffering from conditions would subject themselves to the tests willingly. Drugs would be cheaper for everyone without the scam artist pharmaceuticals and government regulations. I don't know whats more wrong morally. Letting human trials occur without any government interference, or corporations with patents withholding lifesaving drugs from tens of millions of people world wide. I think a free market system would be more fair to be honest, just going by the numbers.
Except again, if history is indicator, academics do not create drugs in any volume because the State (and tax payors) do not have the appetite to fund potential failures. Yes, Cuba did create a NSCLC vaccine, but they had the entire weight of the State behind them.

Again, I point to Apotex as a prime example. In the 70's and 80's the Canadian government could have decided to create a Crown corporation and open R&D centres across Canada. They didn't. Instead, we got compulsory licensing and Canada free rode on the rest of the world's investments into medical discovery.

As to withholding life saving drugs, every major branded manufacturer on the planet has patient assistance programs and compassionate use. We have never, ever turned down a patient for a drug in Canada who could not pay. We also give boat loads of free drug away in the developing world. There are unethical companies, I will not deny that. The vast majority do not operate that way though.
Temp. Banned
Apr 15, 2011
3146 posts
358 upvotes
Scarborough
unshavenyak wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2018 11:08 am
Except again, if history is indicator, academics do not create drugs in any volume because the State (and tax payors) do not have the appetite to fund potential failures. Yes, Cuba did create a NSCLC vaccine, but they had the entire weight of the State behind them.

Again, I point to Apotex as a prime example. In the 70's and 80's the Canadian government could have decided to create a Crown corporation and open R&D centres across Canada. They didn't. Instead, we got compulsory licensing and Canada free rode on the rest of the world's investments into medical discovery.

As to withholding life saving drugs, every major branded manufacturer on the planet has patient assistance programs and compassionate use. We have never, ever turned down a patient for a drug in Canada who could not pay. We also give boat loads of free drug away in the developing world. There are unethical companies, I will not deny that. The vast majority do not operate that way though.
its just the tip of the iceberg. Whenever and wherever government gets involved, things turn unpleasant. I always advocate for a pure free market economy, not just pharmaceuticals but every other industry. No patents, NO IP, no infinite trademarks. Get rid of these un necessary communist subsidies and everyone will be happier.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 83521.html
Deal Addict
Dec 28, 2005
1899 posts
488 upvotes
blaznazn22 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2018 11:16 am
its just the tip of the iceberg. Whenever and wherever government gets involved, things turn unpleasant. I always advocate for a pure free market economy, not just pharmaceuticals but every other industry. No patents, NO IP, no infinite trademarks. Get rid of these un necessary communist subsidies and everyone will be happier.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 83521.html
I would be all for patent reform like the old German system. Formulae cannot be patented, but manufacturing processes are protected. Though there are strong arguments in favour of patents today due to the time it takes to even bring a medicine to market (longer regulatory processes, health technology assessments, pricing negotiations, stringent supply chain requirements, etc.).
Temp. Banned
Apr 15, 2011
3146 posts
358 upvotes
Scarborough
unshavenyak wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2018 11:28 am
I would be all for patent reform like the old German system. Formulae cannot be patented, but manufacturing processes are protected. Though there are strong arguments in favour of patents today due to the time it takes to even bring a medicine to market (longer regulatory processes, health technology assessments, pricing negotiations, stringent supply chain requirements, etc.).
I don't believe in any protections period. Let the free market run free. Nothing is protected, not even the "manufacturing process". If someone or group can replicate the functions of a machine then let them do it. I believe in removing all these regulations on the meds, otherwise it wouldn't work. To be honest though, removing patents/IP/trademarks should be done last on the pharma industry. It should be a slow methodological process, removing protections in other industries before getting to the more sensitive industry (pharma)
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 19, 2004
7755 posts
1193 upvotes
Cambridge, ON
unshavenyak wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2018 9:51 am
That would make sense if taxes was inter-generational equity in taxes. The fact of the matter is that health care currently consumes 60% of every tax dollar. This is projected to increase to 80% as Boomers and the following generation retire. The reasons are multi-factorial, but it is primarily driven by increased life expectancy, the health care system transitioning to management of chronic conditions and a need for costly national infrastructure projects. Whether you want to admit it or not, my generation and subsequent generations are going to be holding a larger tax burden than the Boomers and their ilk. The Boomers are eating Canada's young.
So who is paying for your Healthcare when you are older?
Deal Addict
Dec 28, 2005
1899 posts
488 upvotes
don242 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2018 7:06 pm
So who is paying for your Healthcare when you are older?
I likely will because the governments will be bankrupt by then from the provincial and federal Liberals' fiscal policy.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 19, 2004
7755 posts
1193 upvotes
Cambridge, ON
unshavenyak wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2018 7:31 pm
I likely will because the governments will be bankrupt by then from the provincial and federal Liberals' fiscal policy.
Could be. Good luck.

This is an older thread but if you go back you will see that I can't figure out why people are so desperate to pay more taxes. But everyone seems intent on spending as much as possible.
Deal Addict
Dec 28, 2005
1899 posts
488 upvotes
don242 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2018 7:53 pm
Could be. Good luck.

This is an older thread but if you go back you will see that I can't figure out why people are so desperate to pay more taxes. But everyone seems intent on spending as much as possible.
Fully agreed. I am not opposed to expanding coverage to those who have no insurance under the existing public drug plans or private insurance. What I am opposed to is the Liberal government going about it in quite possibly the most idiotic and irresponsible way possible.
Deal Addict
Jul 13, 2012
3374 posts
363 upvotes
Ottawa
blaznazn22 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2018 10:46 am
without patents, IP and whatnot, pharma would not create new drugs. But others, those in academics still would create these drugs. The experiments would still occur, and those people suffering from conditions would subject themselves to the tests willingly. Drugs would be cheaper for everyone without the scam artist pharmaceuticals and government regulations. I don't know whats more wrong morally. Letting human trials occur without any government interference, or corporations with patents withholding lifesaving drugs from tens of millions of people world wide. I think a free market system would be more fair to be honest, just going by the numbers.
Things like pharmaceuticals cost a lot of money to develop. What's the incentive for companies to go out and spend the money if other companies can instantly copy it and sell the exact same thing? "Academics" can get grants, but they're not going to get grants for tens of millions of dollars to develop the pharmaceuticals.
Deal Addict
Dec 28, 2005
1899 posts
488 upvotes
ConsoleWatcher wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2018 9:33 pm
Things like pharmaceuticals cost a lot of money to develop. What's the incentive for companies to go out and spend the money if other companies can instantly copy it and sell the exact same thing? "Academics" can get grants, but they're not going to get grants for tens of millions of dollars to develop the pharmaceuticals.
Lots of money and time. And it may not even work once you go to phase II or phase III trials. It's a huge gamble and as I mentioned earlier, one that most tax payors are not willing to fund.

Top